This category is within the scope of WikiProject Longevity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the World's oldest people 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.LongevityWikipedia:WikiProject LongevityTemplate:WikiProject LongevityLongevity articles
This category is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women 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.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women articles
This category is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
@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)[reply]
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". – FayenaticLondon 14:52, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
