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:rename/merge. Good Ol’factory(talk) 20:38, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: To match parent articles/WP:OVERCAT. – Michael (talk) 23:41, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. – Michael (talk) 23:47, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/rename all per nom. GiantSnowman 12:53, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support all - per nom. Fenix down (talk) 11:36, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- We have successive teams, all using the same name, but no dabpage or general article explaining their relationship (which is needed). In UK, we do not have a new article or new category when a club is promoted from one league to another. I do not think we do so even where the club goes inot liquidation and is replaced by one of the same name. Are these effectively successive incarnations of the same club? if so merge all to Category:Baltimore Bays players. This is applying the principle, one club one category. We should not have a new category for every new franchise, unless there is a clear break between the old club and the new one of the same name. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:43, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Which there clearly was, so there having them in one category makes no sense because they're not all the same franchise, and a clear break is irrelevant. For example, Seattle Sounders played in the USL through 2008. Then the MLS team began play the following year. Not the same franchise. That goes for Portland Timbers, Vancouver Whitecaps and Montreal Impact as well. – Michael (talk) 22:11, 29 October 2013 (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.
Nominator's rationale: This is probably a sense of humour failure on my part, but these are seven categories that seem to serve no useful purpose. Six are used on one user's talk page, while the seventh groups them and is listed in the high-level Category:Wikipedians. J Milburn (talk) 21:10, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you are correct. It is a sense of humour failure on your part. I very much doubt they have a useful purpose except to amuse. Do what you like with them :). They were put on my page by Technical 13 as a joke, and someone else actually created one of them. So I created the rest. Now they do no good at all, but they do no harm either. FiddleFaddle 21:18, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Per WP:USERCAT, User categories are navigation aides for Wikipedians, to be used for a collborative purpose to build the encyclopedia. However, these categories do not assist collaboration. Editors may of course keep the red-linked categories on their userpage if they so wish, just as I have had two red-linked silly categs on my userpage for the last few years. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 23:27, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
delete all - welcome to keep redlinks of course.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:49, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We should not delete these just because they are humorous. That might start a bad trend that could result in the deletion of the "Furry Wikipedians" and the "Pastafarian Wikipedians" and several more. Personally, if we're going to start deleting these user cats, I'd prefer losing a few Eventualist Wikipedians, who have really screwed up Wikipedia, and also those damn, wishy washy agnostic Wimpypedians, too!>) – Paine EllsworthCLIMAX! 14:42, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
PS.♪ I'm an old coxwain... from the Rio Grande... if you think I'm tough... then you don't think enough...! ♪ – Paine EllsworthCLIMAX!
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.
Nominator's rationale: These 3 categories just contain one article. I.e. it appears that an editor has created new categories to put his article in rather than find existing categories that the article fits. If there's a need for such categories then they should be correctly titled and integrated into the category structure. DexDor (talk) 20:37, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all -- These orphans are a misuse of the category system. There may be room for a Category:Classic cars category, but I am not sure that there is a robust definition for what cars are "classic". Certainly, this is not it. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:48, 24 October 2013 (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.
Upmerge -I can't see any reason why this can't sit as a direct sub-category of its spy films parent without the intermediate layering. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 20:12, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Category:Spy films. This category contains only 1 item (Category:Spy comedy films), and we don't need a container category for just one item. Note that if the category is not merged, then the proposed renaming is wrong. This a category of sub-genres, not of genres. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 23:18, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the whole "films about Foo" or here "Foo films" is misguided. For example, Techno-thriller films which includes the Jurassic Park franchise as a subcat, is itself a subcat of Spy films, making the Jurassic Park films spy films. Really? Does Wikipedia really believe that? Do the supporters of these sorts of categories have reliable sources that Jurrasic Park is a spy film. If it is, anything is, so the category is meaningless. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 07:47, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
An error in categorization is not an argument for the deletion of an entire category tree. You are correct that not all techno-thriller films are spy films (although there is significant overlap) so I have removed the techno-thriller category from the spy film parent. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 14:59, 22 October 2013 (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.
Delete the whole "films about Foo" or here "Foo films" is misguided. For example, Techno-thriller films which includes the Jurassic Park franchise as a subcat, is itself a subcat of Spy films, making the Jurassic Park films spy films. Really? Does Wikipedia really believe that? Do the supporters of these sorts of categories have reliable sources that Jurrasic Park is a spy film. If it is, anything is, so the category is meaningless. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 07:47, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rename - per nom. See comments above re: techno-thrillers. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 15:03, 22 October 2013 (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.
Nominator's rationale: Of the articles currently in this category only one (the Saipan article) belongs in Category:Trails (that article can be upmerged to several of the parent categories). The other articles in the category are about a ship, museums, branches of archaeology etc for which this is not a WP:DEFINING characteristic. DexDor (talk) 06:17, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- I can see no coherence to the category. A Category:Coastal footpaths category might be legitimate (to categorise articles on paths and trails). A maritime trail would involve walking on water, which most of us cannot do! (Unsigned comment by Peterkingiron [1]) DexDor (talk) 18:37, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Second comment -- This appears to be a mishmash of unrelated articles. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:50, 24 October 2013 (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.
