Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 January 19

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. MER-C 19:51, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Ridesharing companies of Australia‎ to Category:Ridesharing companies, Category:Road transport in Australia, Category:Online companies of Australia and Category:Transport companies of Australia
• Propose merging Category:Ridesharing companies of Bangladesh to Category:Ridesharing companies, Category:Road transport in Bangladesh, Category:Online companies of Bangladesh and Category:Transport companies of Bangladesh
• Propose merging Category:Ridesharing companies of Brazil‎ to Category:Ridesharing companies, Category:Road transport in Brazil‎, Category:Online companies of Brazil‎ and Category:Transport companies of Brazil
• Propose merging Category:Ridesharing companies of Canada to Category:Ridesharing companies, Category:Road transport in Canada, Category:Online companies of Canada and Category:Transportation companies of Canada
• Propose merging Category:Ridesharing companies of China to Category:Ridesharing companies, Category:Road transport in China, Category:Online companies of China and Category:Transport companies of China
• Propose merging Category:Ridesharing companies of Estonia‎ to Category:Ridesharing companies, Category:Road transport in Estonia, Category:Online companies of Estonia and Category:Transport companies of Estonia
• Propose merging Category:Ridesharing companies of India to Category:Ridesharing companies, Category:Road transport in India, Category:Online companies of India and Category:Transport companies of India
• Propose merging Category:Ridesharing companies of Israel to Category:Ridesharing companies, Category:Road transport in Israel, Category:Online companies of Israel and Category:Transport companies of Israel
• Propose merging Category:Ridesharing companies of Malaysia to Category:Ridesharing companies, Category:Road transport in Malaysia, Category:Online companies of Malaysia and Category:Transport companies of Malaysia
• Propose merging Category:Ridesharing companies of Nigeria‎ to Category:Ridesharing companies, Category:Road transport in Nigeria, Category:Online companies of Nigeria and Category:Transport companies of Nigeria
• Propose merging Category:Ridesharing companies of Norway‎ to Category:Ridesharing companies, Category:Road transport in Norway, Category:Online companies of Norway and Category:Transport companies of Norway
• Propose merging Category:Ridesharing companies of the Philippines to Category:Ridesharing companies, Category:Road transportation in the Philippines, Category:Online companies of the Philippines and Category:Transportation companies of the Philippines
• Propose merging Category:Ridesharing companies of Russia‎ to Category:Ridesharing companies, Category:Road transport in Russia, Category:Online companies of Russia and Category:Transport companies of Russia
• Propose merging Category:Ridesharing companies of Singapore to Category:Ridesharing companies, Category:Road transport in Singapore, Category:Online companies of Singapore and Category:Transport companies of Singapore
• Propose merging Category:Ridesharing companies of South Korea‎ to Category:Ridesharing companies, Category:Road transport in South Korea, Category:Online companies of South Korea and Category:Transport companies of South Korea
• Propose merging Category:Ridesharing companies of Spain to Category:Ridesharing companies, Category:Road transport in Spain, Category:Online companies of Spain and Category:Transport companies of Spain
• Propose merging Category:Ridesharing companies of the United Arab Emirates‎ to Category:Ridesharing companies, Category:Road transport in the United Arab Emirates‎, Category:Online companies of the United Arab Emirates‎ and Category:Transport companies of the United Arab Emirates

Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, all the above categories only contain 1 or 2 articles and the total number of articles across the globe is not such that we need to subdivide this by country to begin with. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:00, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - perfectly standard to subcat by country. These have also been at cfd (and speedy) very recently. Oculi (talk) 18:20, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• That is correct and one of the opposing comments in those discussions was that the subcats were way too small. While that was not a good argument against renaming, it was a good observation anyway. We should not fully diffuse a tree if it only leads to micro-categorization. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:25, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment -- While these may be small at present, what prospect is there of them becoming better populated? If this is a niche franchise, where there is unlikely ever to be more than a very few per country, we should look to merge. If rivals are likely to appear, we should keep them. I take it that this is mainly about the better use of cars. If so, I wonder whether we can devise a category that also covers taxi companies and UBER, which in my country is classified as private hire. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:11, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• These articles are about Uberisation and I tend to agree with Peterkingiron that these categories may grow. But there are only 21 articles about taxi companies across the world, and I suspect most of them are US or UK based. Rathfelder (talk) 16:36, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• NB: these categories were mostly created by Rathfelder, who presumably thought at the time that the task was worth doing. Oculi (talk) 00:52, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard to tell until you've done it how many articles there will be. Rathfelder (talk) 15:59, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Tip for next time: start with US and UK subcategories only, thereafter assess how much remains for the other 200 countries in the world. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:55, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom. We don't need to subdivide by country for everything. If and when a country has more than 3-5 ridesharing companies, we can re-create the categories. Doug Mehus T·C 03:01, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support no need for such micro-categories. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:19, 25 January 2020 (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: no consensus. MER-C 19:56, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Russian Orthodox churches in Jerusalem

Nominator's rationale Per WP:Smallcat. Few articles with little potential for growth. Already parented to Category:Eastern Orthodox church buildings in Jerusalem,Category:Russian Orthodox church buildings in Israel and Category:Russian Orthodox church buildings in the State of Palestine. See below also. Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:13, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep according to the article on Russian Orthodox properties in Israel, there are seven Russian Orthodox Churches in Jerusalem presently, so the category can expand that much. Furthermore, due to the current conflict between the Russian and Constantinopolitan Orthodox Churches over Ukraine, it is expected that additional Russian Orthodox Churches may come into existence in the Middle East in Turkey and possibly also in Israel if the Jerusalem Patriarchate sides with Constantinople. However, I'm in favor of deleting Russian Orthodox Cathedrals in Jerusalem below.--Jahaza (talk) 06:03, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, many churches are not notable so the existence of more churches does not say a lot. But merge to Category:Eastern Orthodox church buildings in Jerusalem, Category:Russian Orthodox church buildings in Israel and Category:Russian Orthodox church buildings in the State of Palestine. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:11, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per Marcocapelle. There may be a question what to do with Russian Compound, which is more than just a church. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:22, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• That article does not really belong here anyway. It should be excluded from the merge. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:29, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Jerusalem is one of few places where several national traditions of Orthodoxy coexist, and also a defining location for Orthodoxy (or for that matter, a large part of Christianity). There are very defining reasons why Russians in Jerusalem have kept a religious activity independent of the Greeks, which otherwise dominate Orthodoxy there, and there is ample literature about that. Also, Jerusalem may be one of the places in the world with the highest density of notable churches. Place Clichy (talk) 21:33, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per user:Jahaza's arguments.GreyShark (dibra) 13:31, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Jahaza: Those arguments involve WP:Crystalball gazing. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:16, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No more so than assuming the category is unlikely to expand does.Jahaza (talk) 19:15, 25 January 2020 (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. MER-C 19:46, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:WikiProject Akwa Ibom (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: This and all sub-categories are (a) sockpuppet creations (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Shingling334) and (b) documentation of a Wikiproject that no longer exists, as a result of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Akwa Ibom. Bringing here in case there's anything I'm missing. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:45, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, the sub-cat is adequately parented by Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in Nigeria. – Fayenatic London 11:23, 22 January 2020 (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. MER-C 19:46, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose splitting Category:Number-one films in the United States to Category:2020 box office number-one films in the United States and Category:2019 box office number-one films in the United States, etc.

Nominator's rationale: I worry if this category should even exist, but if it should, this should be renamed to Category:Box office number-one films in the United States as a holder shell, and then split out to create multiple subcategories by year, similar to what Category:Lists of box office number-one films in the United States does. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:27, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NONDEF, it is sometimes not even mentioned at all in the articles. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:18, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: It would be appropriate to split it up into different categories. Cwf97 (talk) 10:10, 13 January 2020 (EST)

• Delete Fails WP:CATDEF. It is encyclopedic content, but not a defining aspect of the film. This sort of thing is best handled by a list, such Lists of box office number-one films. Betty Logan (talk) 17:23, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment as nominator, though I suggested splitting and renaming, I'm also in support of deletion. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:08, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:CATDEF. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:19, 22 January 2020 (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: merge. MER-C 19:48, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Catholic missionaries in the Balkans to Category:Roman Catholic missionaries in the Balkans

Nominator's rationale: consistency with the rest of the category tree Elizium23 (talk) 16:48, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Category:Roman Catholic missionaries in Europe, since it all has been diffused by country there is no particular need for a general Balkan category. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:52, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Marcocapelle: merging would prejudge that Catholic missionaries are not a suitable sub-category of Category:History of the Balkans. – Fayenatic London 15:54, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Fayenatic london: This category is ost probably a leftover from the first blatantly POV version of the category at Catholic propagandists in the Balkans, see discussion. Anyway, burden would probably be on providing arguments for which Catholic missionary activity has been in any way defining for the history of the Balkans as a region, because if it was defining for any individual national subcategory then Roman Catholic missionaries in Foo could just as well be in History of Foo, itself a sub of History of the Balkans for these countries. No such category inclusion is found. Place Clichy (talk) 21:33, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- This is a container with five sub-cats, enough to keep. I would not want to see all five added to History of the Balkans, which would be needed if fully upmerged. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:13, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The subcats are each part of their country tree, hence remain part of the Balkans tree. I doubt if we should create or keep Balkan categories for every topic that is split by country while there are no overarching Balkan articles. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:34, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is this called Balkanizing? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:39, 17 January 2020 (UTC) [reply]

• Alt merge to Category:Roman Catholic missionaries in Europe per Marcocapelle. Rename per nom as second best option. Place Clichy (talk) 21:33, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support and support alt merge above need to keep "Roman" in these Catholic categories. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:26, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support alt merge above, I now concur that there is no need to keep this as part of the History of the Balkans hierarchy. – Fayenatic London 11:20, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support alt merge -- "Roman" is desirable in the name to distinguish from Old Catholic and Anglo-Catholic, in areas where those traditions exist. That should not require sub-cats to be renamed. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:18, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge What even is "the Balkans"? There is a dispute regarding whether Croatia is in the Balkans -- if it is, most of the peninsula's Catholics are Croats. If not, the only areas with large Catholic concentrations are in Herzegovina and Albania (plus the single city of Gjakova and its environs in Kosovo), with a total Catholic population of less than a tenth of what it would be if you included Croatia. Obviously this is an enormous issue, and I can only imagine all the issues that member pages concerning Catholic missionaries in Croatia -- and probalby also Transylvania! -- will run into. Better to dodge all these headaches. --Calthinus (talk) 03:10, 26 January 2020 (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: merge (option B). MER-C 19:52, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose splitting Category:Television stations in the Bluefield–Beckley–Oak Hill market to Category:Television stations in Bluefield, Category:Television stations in Beckley and Category:Television stations in Oak Hill

Nominator's rationale: option A: split in order to align with format of siblings in Category:Television stations in the United States by city; option B: merge to Category:Television stations in West Virginia and disperse the articles to the city categories, because in option A the split categories become too small. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:48, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Option B: Do not split -- There are 7 articles of which 4 are redirects. This is hardly enough for a category, certainly not enough to split. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:39, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose options A and B; maintain consistency with other categories. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 16:00, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Consistency with other city categories is exactly the rationale of the nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:55, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Option B: Do not split - consistency with other city categories. Oculi (talk) 12:10, 19 January 2020 (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: split. MER-C 19:54, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose splitting Category:Television stations in the Hampton Roads market to Category:Television stations in Hampton, Virginia and other city categories in this area

Nominator's rationale: option A: split in order to align with format of siblings in Category:Television stations in the United States by city; option B: merge to Category:Television stations in Virginia and disperse the articles to the city categories, because in option A the split categories become too small. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:54, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose options A and B; rename to Category:Television stations in the Norfolk–Portsmouth–Newport News market (official Nielsen market name); maintain consistency with other categories. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 15:56, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• There is no category tree by Nielsen markets and I do not think we need one. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:56, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Option A - there are quite a few of these, so splitting by city will probably work. A category tree by Nielsen market seems a bad idea. Oculi (talk) 12:17, 19 January 2020 (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: merge manually. MER-C 19:50, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Modern Thessalonica to Category:Modern history of Thessaloniki

Nominator's rationale: The two categories are essentially about the same thing; "Thessalonica" is a form used more for the city's ancient and medieval history, and the "Modern history of x" follows the naming scheme of the parent "Modern history of Greece/Greek Macedonia" categories Constantine ✍ 09:26, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Selectively merge, for example the university article does not belong in the history category. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:41, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Peterkingiron's alternative proposal below to conduct a split may be slightly more accurate, but the intention is the same. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:58, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• merge per nom. Same scope. Dimadick (talk) 18:51, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. Grutness...wha? 02:39, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. Place Clichy (talk) 21:33, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Split The other target should be Category:Thessaloniki for those things that continue and so are contemporary. I observe that Category:History of Thessaloniki has ancient, medieval, Ottoman, and modern sub-cats. I would suggest that the "modern" (and other Greek history siblings) should have a headnote defining them as relating to the period after Ottoman rule. Possibly that might include events of the 19th-century freedom struggle. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:26, 22 January 2020 (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: procedural close (see BrownHairedGirl). MER-C 19:45, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Algeria sports-related lists to Category:Algeria sport-related lists
• Propose renaming Category:American Samoa sports-related lists to Category:American Samoa sport-related lists
• Propose renaming Category:American sports-related lists to Category:United States sport-related lists
• Propose renaming Category:Angola sports-related lists to Category:Angola sport-related lists
• Propose renaming Category:Antigua and Barbuda sports-related lists to Category:Antigua and Barbuda sport-related lists
• Propose renaming Category:Argentina sports-related lists to Category:Argentina sport-related lists
• Propose renaming Category:Australian sports-related lists to Category:Australia sport-related lists
• Propose renaming Category:Bolivia sports-related lists to Category:Bolivia sport-related lists
• Propose renaming Category:Brazil sports-related lists to Category:Brazil sport-related lists
• Propose renaming Category:British sports-related lists to Category:United Kingdom sport-related lists
• Propose renaming Category:British Virgin Islands sports-related lists to Category:British Virgin Islands sport-related lists
• Propose renaming Category:Brunei sports-related lists to Category:Brunei sport-related lists
• Propose renaming Category:Burundi sports-related lists to Category:Burundi sport-related lists
• Propose renaming Category:Canadian sports-related lists to Category:Canada sport-related lists

Also Propose renaming the categories below for consistency, although they have not been formally marked as CfD:

Nominator's rationale: Naming of subcategories under Category:Sports-related lists by country needs to be homogenized. Three different forms are used inconsistently:

• ZZ sport-related lists
• ZZian sport-related lists
• ZZian sports-related lists

I am suggesting we adopt the first form, as it is simpler and more familiar to keep country names in their uninflected form (United States vs American), and it is currently the more common of all three. Iketsi (talk) 05:44, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Iketsi: You'll need to tag all of them, or ask a friendly bot operator to do so (JJMC89 or DannyS712 be your best bets). MER-C 11:09, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I support standardising on the noun version of the country (i.e. use Category:United States sports-related lists, not Category:American sports-related lists) ... but I am not sure about the "sport" vs "sports". That's a WP:ENGVAR issue, and while I personally think that category title works better when standardised, my proposal to standardise the "organization"/"organisation" variation created a huge shitstorm. I prefer the "sport" format as proposed, but since nearly all the current titles use "sports", I suggest sticking with "sports" to avoid drama.

Procedurally, please note that no categories can be renamed by a CFD discussion unless they have been tagged. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:11, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PS Note that the parent category use the nouns: e.g. Category:American sports-related lists is a child of Category:Sports in the United States and Category:United States-related lists, so the noun form is more consistent. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:15, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support renaming all to use 'ZZ sports-related lists' per BHG. We have Category:Sports, Category:Sports-related lists and there is no consistent ENGVAR use of 'sport' rather than 'sports' in the subcats. (UK and Australia and the US all use 'sports' in the above list.) Oculi (talk) 12:30, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am fine with either "ZZ sport-related lists" or "ZZ sports-related", as long as all categories are standardized. As I mentioned in my original batch of CfD requests, the singular form for "sport(s)" is slightly more common within it's mother category, but the plural form is used by the mother category itself and it does seem to be more prevalent on Wikipedia overall. Once we come to an agreement, I will ask a friendly bot operator to rename whichever set of categories we have deemed inconsistent. Iketsi (talk) 14:29, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Iketsi, you don't rename categories byask[ing] a friendly bot operator to rename whichever set of categories. You do it by making a proposal here, and if the closer finds a consensus for a change, the closer instructs a bot to do the work (at WP:CFDW). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:11, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You do however have to ask a friendly bot to tag everything that might be renamed. Eg Category:Chinese sports-related lists is not as yet tagged. Oculi (talk) 17:43, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose this is an WP:ENGVAR issue not error. You may say "sport" or you may say "sports", but that doesn't make the other folks wrong. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:28, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That is not the issue and nobody said other folks were wrong. The unjustifiable lack of consistency is the problem, as it makes it difficult for editors who create sport(s)-related lists to categorize them properly without guessing. One country's list could be categorized under "ZZ sport-related lists", another one could be "ZZian sport-related lists", and yet a third one could be "ZZian sports-related lists". Iketsi (talk) 05:12, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I support consistency, but I dont have strong views about which option. Rathfelder (talk) 16:39, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As stated previously, I also do not have a strong preference for either form, but here are some usage statistics that could help us come to a concensus:

• On Wikipedia, there are 123,452 results for "sport-related" and 171,462 results for "sports-related".
• On Google Trends, "sports-related", "sports-minded", and "sports-reference" are slightly more used worldwide than their singular counterpart: https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&q=sport-related,sports-related Iketsi (talk) 18:38, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Procedural close. The "categories below" are still untagged, and no action can be taken on them. There is a further problem that the nun/adjective change has been obscured behind the discussion's focus on the sport/sports change.

I suggest that the best way forward is to close this nomination, and then create a new nomination which:

1. tags all the categories
2. List two options:
   • "Option A" = use country noun, standardise on "sports" (plural)
   • "Option B" = use country noun, don't change the "sport"/"sports" variation

That way we can have a much clearer discussion.

If the nominator agrees to withdraw this nomination, I will volunteer to construct the new nomination. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:49, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support User:BrownHairedGirl's proposal. The AB proposal will lead to clearer consensus on the noun versus the adjective, and will resolve the sport(s) issue one way or the other. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:11, 23 January 2020 (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.