Category talk:Women supercentenarians
Latest comment: 2 years ago by Oculi in topic Opposed speedy move request
 | This category does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||
Opposed speedy move request
edit- REDIRECT Category:Women supercentenarians to Category:Supercentenarian women – Grammar (C2A). — Guarapiranga ☎ 23:17, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
- REDIRECT Category:Men supercentenarians to Category:Supercentenarian men – Grammar (C2A). — Guarapiranga ☎ 23:17, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
- REDIRECT Category:Women centenarians to Category:Centenarian women – Grammar (C2A).— Guarapiranga ☎ 01:33, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
- REDIRECT Category:Men centenarians to Category:Centenarian men – Grammar (C2A).— Guarapiranga ☎ 01:33, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose these two as the target names wouldn't match the other parents Category:Women centenarians, Category:Men centenarians.
This opposition can be ignored if those parents are added to the nomination.– Fayenatic London 21:35, 23 June 2022 (UTC)- Voilà.— Guarapiranga ☎ 01:33, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
- I tagged the new categories, we are now waiting for 48h--Ymblanter (talk) 05:49, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you. Sorry to have wasted your time on this – I see now that it will require a full discussion, as there was a previous CFD to rename those at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_July_10#Category:Women_centenarians. – Fayenatic London 08:08, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
- I tagged the new categories, we are now waiting for 48h--Ymblanter (talk) 05:49, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
- Voilà.— Guarapiranga ☎ 01:33, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose these two as the target names wouldn't match the other parents Category:Women centenarians, Category:Men centenarians.
- @Fayenatic london: that discussion went in a completely different direction, is it really necessary to hold up this speedy nomination because of that discussion? Marcocapelle (talk) 13:17, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
- Yes. Since multiple contributors said the current names pose no grammatical problem, they cannot be "obvious grammatical errors", so C2A can't be used to "correct" them. Moreover, some other names were suggested, but the new names proposed here were not. Speedy renaming can sometimes be acceptable after a full CFD, but it would require a fresh argument, not just "Grammar". – Fayenatic London 14:52, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
- My argument is really just that--grammar--but I don't see a problem in discussing it. That CFD was about a different proposal, though, to switch men/women to male/female in cat names, with the obvious implications in the whole gender vs. sex debate. I'm afraid the arguments there for grammatical correctness of wo/men centenarians are both unfounded, as grammatical correctness is not defined by common use (e.g. yous feel me?), and inapplicable: driver is a noun; centenarian and supercentenarian are adjectives. Wo/men super/centenarian is just a bad translation from Spanish (or any other romantic language). — Guarapiranga ☎ 16:32, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- Centenarian is a noun in English. Oculi (talk) 10:17, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- My argument is really just that--grammar--but I don't see a problem in discussing it. That CFD was about a different proposal, though, to switch men/women to male/female in cat names, with the obvious implications in the whole gender vs. sex debate. I'm afraid the arguments there for grammatical correctness of wo/men centenarians are both unfounded, as grammatical correctness is not defined by common use (e.g. yous feel me?), and inapplicable: driver is a noun; centenarian and supercentenarian are adjectives. Wo/men super/centenarian is just a bad translation from Spanish (or any other romantic language). — Guarapiranga ☎ 16:32, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- Yes. Since multiple contributors said the current names pose no grammatical problem, they cannot be "obvious grammatical errors", so C2A can't be used to "correct" them. Moreover, some other names were suggested, but the new names proposed here were not. Speedy renaming can sometimes be acceptable after a full CFD, but it would require a fresh argument, not just "Grammar". – Fayenatic London 14:52, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Fayenatic london: that discussion went in a completely different direction, is it really necessary to hold up this speedy nomination because of that discussion? Marcocapelle (talk) 13:17, 24 June 2022 (UTC)