Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 February 27

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< February 26 February 28 >

February 27[edit]

Category:New Game Plus video games[edit]

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:21, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Not a defining trait, and of nebulous scope. Pinging discussants from WT:VG#Category:New_Game_Plus_video_games: @Sergecross73, SnowFire, IDV, Dissident93, Kiyoshiendo, FishLizardMan, and The1337gamer czar 17:53, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not a defining characteristic. I support documenting it in Wikipedia, but not as a category. Sergecross73 msg me 20:21, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete
  • Keep: I disagree with the nominator's rational, it is can be a defining characteristic of a game and is not nebulously defined. Any game that allows the player, after beating the main storyline, to start a new game and keep some combination of their experience, money & equipment is a new game plus game. I agree some entries in the category should be removed, but that's just category management (example: the second quest in The Legend of Zelda doesn't qualify as nothing carries over, you are just starting a new, harder game). Games like Mass Effect use NG+ as a defining characteristic, allowing players who've beaten the game to play again with the same experience, money and equipment, and an increased level cap. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 23:59, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per Serge's comment. It being included in the game's article itself is fine, as long as it's not filled with excessive details (WP:GAMECRUFT), but a category shouldn't exist for one. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 00:46, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Overcategorization based upon a gameplay element, certainly not a "defining characteristic". soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 08:17, 29 February 2016 (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.

Category:TBS (U.S. TV channel) network shows[edit]

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. (If the "U.S." is dropped as a result of the RM discussion in progress, the category could be speedily renamed to comply.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:23, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category was renamed from Category:TBS (TV channel) network shows to reflect a recent move of the related article from TBS (TV channel) to TBS (U.S. TV channel). However this still seems a bit clunky, including both "channel" and "network". The cat name should include one or the other, but not both. The lead of the article says Turner Broadcasting System (TBS) is an American basic cable and satellite television channel, and the article title is TBS (U.S. TV channel), not TBS (U.S. TV network), so "network" should not be in the cat name since it doesn't apply. "Show" presents another problem. "Show" is often used when referring to TV programs, indeed MOS:TV alternates between the two, but WP:NCTV and instructions in MOS:TV says that when disambiguation is needed, the article title should be "Foo (TV series)". However, many of the programs are not actually "series". A series is generally a set of connected episodes, sharing a story over time, while talk shows and programs like Black Saturday (professional wrestling) are generally just a set of episodes each of which may contain a different story. For this reason, the more generic "program" should be used.
To summarise, the two parts of this proposal are:
  1. Drop "network" from the category name
  2. Replace "shows" with "programs", although "series" would be acceptable if that's the consensus. AussieLegend (✉) 16:26, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support, though note that there is an article move request in progress which might affect the outcome of this request, focused on the necessity of the disambiguation "(U.S.)". -- Wikipedical (talk) 21:19, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If the outcome of that RM results in a reversal of the previous move, it would simply mean amending the proposal to rename the cat to Category:TBS (TV channel) programs. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:55, 28 February 2016 (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.

Category:Sports clubs[edit]

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: relisted here. (non-admin closure) ~ RobTalk 21:07, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WT:SPORTS has been notified of this discussion.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  09:28, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The bulk of the content in both categories is teams/clubs that are called "teams" in one sport but "clubs" in another, or called "teams" in one dialect but "clubs" in another within the same sport. A few items in the clubs category are clubs in a "society"/"association" sense and have nothing to do with teams or "clubs" in the team sense, and should be relocated to some other subcat of Category:Sports organisations. Just because they have "club" in their name does not mean they should go in a "clubs" category that really is the same thing as "teams".

Normally I would not care which of "clubs" or "teams" is used, because I don't like WP:ENGVAR fist-shaking matches, but I think that we should use "teams" in this case simply because it is not ambiguous with any other kind of organization. The "clubs" name should have a soft redir. at it. This merge should not affect the child category names that prefer "clubs" in certain sports or in certain countries instead of "teams" (any similar club/team content forks that have happened by accident can be merged later, but mostly the categories are either "teams" or "clubs", not both, so it's not a large problem).

If the odd case arises that a particular club (in the broad sense of a team and the corporate entity that surrounds it) actually fields multiple teams (in the narrow sense of a specific set of individuals playing together at the same time in the same uniform), and the club and the teams are all independently notable, that's a case-by-case basis matter, and can be handled by the "Foo team A" and "Foo team B" and overarching "Foo club" article all being in "Category:Foo club". Or whatever. I.e., don't over-think it.

In the interim, I've cross-categorized Category:Sports clubs and Category:Sports teams so people can find the team/club they're looking for, if they're lucky and persistent.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  09:25, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose any general merger. Professional team sport in UK is invariably organised by clubs. We only hear of the first team, but there is commonly also a second or reserves team. Playing in them is generally NN, so that we may not get many articles, but they are not the same thing. Some selective merging may be appropriate, but probably teams to clubs, rather than as nom. Note that Gaelic Athletics Association organises teams in several sports through the same club, so that teams are needed here. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:33, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not general, it's specific. I already addressed these matters. This CfM is about the generic, high-level parent categories listed above, which are redundant (and there may be some second-order ones that are redundant, too, where we've POVFORKed "Category:Sport teams" and "Category:Sport clubs". It's exactly like having a separate category for "pediatric medicine" and "paediatric medicine". We do not fork categories on the basis of colloquial preference for a particular synonym. If any sport or region fairly consistently uses "club", as association football does internationally, and the UK does across many sports, the sport- or region-specific categories for it should probably be named with "clubs". The exact same alternates-team situation pointed out by Peterkingiron exists in various sports that do not use "club", so the objection raised isn't salient for this proposal. For any case where there are multiple "teams" in the same "club", and they're notable enough to generate multiple articles, the club or team-as-organization can simply have its own subcat for them all:
      • Category: Underwater billiards teams [or clubs, whatever] in Mexico
        • Category: Morélia Club Billar Submarina
          • Morélia Club Billar Submarina
          • Morélia Club Billar Submarina B
          • Morélia Club Billar Submarina C
Or even just put them all in the immediate parent cat., as we're presently doing very often (see, e.g., the various B and C teams appearing at Category:Football clubs in Madrid). This is basically a routine WP:ENGVAR matter, a cleanup of accidental or at least incidental but pointless content-forking in the categoryspace.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  22:03, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Present system makes it very hard to find what you are looking for.Rathfelder (talk) 21:41, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for now. One would expect that it should be fairly easy to distinguish between teams and clubs, how difficult can this be? But I see that this in practice it has become a mess, so let's merge first. I wouldn't mind though if anyone in the future would like to make a good split between clubs and teams. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:22, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • If they are to be merged, a better title would be Category:Sports clubs and teams. Tim! (talk) 16:16, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. If some countries & sports were using one word and others the other word without much overlap, I would have supported this. However, other-language Wikipedias have similar category hierarchies; see Sports clubs and Sports teams at Wikidata – if we merged on English wikipedia, which set would we link to? Moreover, some sports use both, e.g. there are extensive hierarchies for Category:Association football clubs and Category:Association football teams. IMHO if there is as strong an overlap in meaning as the nominator states, then the duplication of hierarchies might be better tackled by trying to merge cases where both are used (e.g. association football); if that fails to gain consensus, then just tidy and cross-link the existing structures. There has certainly been insufficient participation here to embark on wholesale merging. – Fayenatic London 09:30, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, a club may have more than one team. A national team is not a club. Dammråtta (talk) 18:20, 26 April 2016 (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.

Category:Missing person cases in England[edit]

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: keep. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:54, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category only contains four entries. Of the four, only Lord Lucan is a genuine "missing persons" case; the remainder are all murder cases where the body was not immediately discovered, but still led to a full trial and conviction in a reasonable timeframe, though for Sian Blake this is still ongoing. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:15, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've added a few more articles to this cat; there are many more articles which are eligible to be added to it. Formerly missing people are eligible for missing person cats. Jim Michael (talk) 13:47, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Even so, I don't think the parent category, Category:Missing person cases in the United Kingdom, is particularly large enough to warrant a split for "England". Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:47, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If only for consisteny with Category:Murder in England, etc. The number of relevant articles will only ever increase. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:02, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The vast majority of people who go missing are found. No-one is missing for their whole life. We don't remove people from missing cats when they're found. Jim Michael (talk) 18:02, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Isn't it a legal requirement in the UK for all missing persons to be presumed dead after so many years? I assume they then just become classified as dead as well as missing. Also, it's cruel to remove people from missing cats. They could be stuck up a tree. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:28, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the US, I think you need to petition the court. Regardless of the exact laws, if someone's whereabouts are unknown for a significant part of their life (or thereafter), that seems defining. If the news reports someone missing because the police haven't broken down the front door to find the corpse yet, not so much. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:44, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment All the articles in missing cats involve a notable missing person case or a notable person for whom going missing received a lot of media coverage. Many of them became (suspected) murder cases. We include people who've not been found, but have been declared dead - such as Lord Lucan and Suzy Lamplugh. Jim Michael (talk) 16:29, 1 March 2016 (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.

Redundant "futsal teams" category mess[edit]

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/delete as specified. MER-C 10:10, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WT:SPORT and WT:FOOTBALL have been notified of this discussion.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  08:31, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting:
Nominator's rationale: This is a thicket of nested, pointless categories created just for a navbox. The extant "clubs" cat. tree should be preferred over the "teams" fork, because futsal is primarily played, in English-speaking countries at all, in Commonwealth nations where "club" is the typical term (contrast this with the basketball "teams" vs. "clubs" mess, below).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  09:03, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all - Too many weeds here. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 16:47, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]


  • Propose upmerging:
Nominator's rationale: Pointless micro-categorization.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  09:03, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge all - Micromanagement sucks. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 16:47, 27 February 2016 (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.

Category:1958 establishments in Burkina Faso[edit]

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: authored-requested speedy deleted and renamed as requested. Ricky81682 (talk) 23:29, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename, anachronistic category name, the name of Burkina Faso was not yet used in 1958, instead it was Upper Volta. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:00, 27 February 2016 (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.

Establishments in Upper Volta and Zaire top categories[edit]

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/delete as specified. MER-C 10:15, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: these are three more cases similar to the nomination of yesterday concerning Siam/Thailand.
Merge since the Republic of Upper Volta and Burkina Faso are the same country (see disambiguation page Upper Volta). In order to avoid a misunderstanding: this proposal does not suggest a rename of e.g. Category:1959 establishments in Upper Volta‎ to Category:1959 establishments in Burkina Faso‎, it only aims at parenting Category:1959 establishments in Upper Volta‎ directly to Category:Establishments in Burkina Faso by year in order to avoid duplication of trees. Also note that the tree of Category:Establishments in French Upper Volta is not included in this nomination. All of this is analogous for Zaire/Democratic Republic of Congo and for the both Georgia trees. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:49, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nominator's rational and past discussion. Inter&anthro (talk) 15:50, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment added a fourth country (Curaçao and Dependencies) in the nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 23:08, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all etc. However the existing annual items should not be renamed, since they use the contemporary name. This Zaire in 1980 will be a sub-cat of DRC in 20th century. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:38, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's indeed exactly the intention of the nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:47, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per my comments on the prior similar nomination. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:05, 29 February 2016 (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.

Redundant "basketball clubs" category mess[edit]

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 Category:Basketball clubs in Auckland (no consensus for deletion), keep Category:International club basketball competitions, and ‎merge all others as specified in the nomination. The emptied categories should either be redirected after merging (if useful, such as with Category:Basketball clubs) or deleted (if implausible alternative names for the merged category, such as with Category:Basketball clubs by country and city‎). (non-admin closure)~ RobTalk 21:16, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WT:SPORT and WT:BASKETBALL have been notified of this discussion.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  08:31, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting:
  • Propose renaming or just deleting:
Nominator's rationale: This is an entire forest of nested categories created just for two teams in Auckland, which are already in Category:Basketball teams in New Zealand, anyway. The Auckland-specific category could be kept (the categorization it provides, e.g. "Sport in Auckland", etc., is arguably not useless, but it only has two articles, and may never have more. I lean twoard keeping it, renamed, just because I lean inclusionistic on such matters. If kept, there's a choice of leaving it at "clubs" because New Zealanders might prefer that term, or moving it to "teams" because that's the conventional lingo in the sport. If it's kept at "clubs", then the Basketball teams in New Zealand cat., and similar ones for other Commonwealth-English nations, should be moved to "clubs". My default is to go with consistency and use "teams". — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  08:15, 27 February 2016 (UTC) Clarified.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  22:07, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to "teams" for the time being, but only because this part of the category structure is currently unhelpful for being so empty. It may have potential to become useful if properly populated. – Fayenatic London 21:37, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]


  • Propose renaming:
Nominator's rationale: Arguably speediable to match the more specific parent cat., Category:Baseball teams, but no reason not to list it for discussion, given that it's tied to the above mess. I decline to give myself carpal tunnel syndrome listing every Category:Basketball clubs established in 1997‎, etc., underneath it. We need a template or bot that does that stuff, and WP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY, anyway. There are places were "clubs" might be the more usual term, but it's not the category namespace's job to serve as a multi-dialect dictionary. I don't necessarily object to leaving at "clubs" the ones for places were Commonwealth English varieties are used and where "club" is more common than "team", though a) we don't have any proof on hand that this is universally applied in a dialect, against the conventions of the sport in question, and b) I don't see that a dialectal colloquialism automatically trumps a topical one. My default is to go with consistency and use "teams".  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  08:15, 27 February 2016 (UTC) Clarified.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  22:13, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support this part, even though "clubs" is a proper term in many cases (except for the national teams, and the teams from multi-sport clubs). I considered a split to "teams", but many articles are about a one-team club, so having hierarchies for both would result in category clutter, and in those cases the year of establishment would be the same for the club and the team. For multi-sport clubs e.g. a football club where a basketball team was formed later, it is the year of establishing the team that is relevant for the basketball hierarchy, not the year that the club was established. – Fayenatic London 09:41, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]


  • Propose merging:
Nominator's rationale: Redundant category. About 50% of the content needs to go in a FIBA subcat, the rest arranged into existing subcats. (some of the FIBA stuff will also need to be added to existing subcats., probably, but that can come later, and much of it already is, anyway).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  08:15, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]


for all propositions
  • Support all – all points made by the nom seem sound. Oculi (talk) 21:23, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Oculi: I added some clarifications about dialectal "team" vs. "club" usage.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  22:13, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support all In terms of basketball in New Zealand team or club would seem correct, so happy to go with team for international consistency. Mattlore (talk) 22:59, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose all, since club seems more international and in line with what it is called for other sports on Wikipedia. Also see what I write in the discussion below. Dammråtta (talk) 11:46, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion: what's the difference between a club and a team?[edit]

Since English is not my first language, maybe I don't get the subtle meanings here, but in Swedish, a club (klubb) is a legal association and it usually has many teams under its name - one main team, maybe a B team and then a number of developing teams for children. Aside from gents teams, some teams may also be for ladies and some teams for disabled players. But they are all in the same club, use the same logo and are supported by the same supporter groups. Is this different in English speaking countries? Dammråtta (talk) 16:24, 20 March 2016 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_February_27&oldid=1088120053"