Talk:Baka v. Hungary

The recent category names controversy.
I just added a link to and created a new category with a name different from but rather similar to one recently created by  For the background to this slightly unusual categorisation, please first see the rather recent catmove nomination, discussion and conclusion Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_October_9.

A try at a not unduly biased summary: As you can see, Buidhe proposed renaming a large number of categories by replacing involving with against, on the ground that this yields more precise information for the majority of involved category members. B. did answer to the first opposing opinion, admitting that for a minority of members the new category would be a misnomer, but estimated that the number of such articles would be very small (after some purging of members in the existing categories). The nomination was relisted on 9 October. B. did not contribute anything more to the discussion (where I was among the four who were outspokenly opposed; non but the the nominee was in favour of the move, but some did not voice a clear opinion). Instead, the next day, B. created a brand new category with the against format. A few weeks later, the request for a move was summed up with a keep.

However, since I and B. in this case were on opposite sides, I invite any interested third party to follow the link rather than trusting my summary.

I'm not claiming that Buidhe actively did something wrong. Nevertheless, most wikipedians would conclude that "moving" the newly created against category to an involving one would be the most reasonable action, considering the just (almost) three weeks keep decision; that is, technically, retaining the category I just created, and deleting Buidhe's. (Leaving just Buidhe's exception on an odd place in the category tree is a bad alternative; and inserting just Buidhe's new against category among all the involving ones in the supercategory Category:European Court of Human Rights case law by involved country also is no reasonable solution, which B. implicitly realised by not doing this.  However, there also exists other possibilities.  I was and am against an outcome where the  new category names is turned to a clear misnomer for a few calid category members, even if this should be a slight improvement for the majority. What I was and is prepared to discuss is whether a more complex category structure could be advantageous, splitting some of the existing categories to different ones. The most strightforward way to do this that I could think of unhappily would involve a number of kept involved categories with no immediate member article and just one immediate member category each, namely, the respective against category. However, if Buidhe has a smarter suggestion, involving less net loss in category transparency. while still not deliberately introducing misnomer situations, then perhaps the gain in precision for some titles would outweight the addition of just a few `unnecessary' categories with few members.

I therefore added a 'consensus' type category, without for now suggesting the removal of the 'Buidhe-named' one (which I freely admit, indeed has a somewhat higher informative value, as regards the article Baka v. Hungary). Buidhe, it's up to you; if you think that for the time being trying to find another solution involves an unproportionately large effort, then we could just nominate 'your' category for deletion (in accordance with the present consensus). Otherwise, I'm prepared to listen. JoergenB (talk) 17:02, 14 November 2021 (UTC)