Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 August 17

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< August 16 August 18 >

August 17[edit]

Category:A.F.C. Telford United[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. – Fayenatic London 13:31, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: To match the name in the title of the associated article, AFC Telford United. Mattythewhite (talk) 22:49, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. GiantSnowman 18:12, 18 August 2021 (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.

Footballers from Galicia (Spain)[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 Lugo, Ourense and Santiago de Compostela; no consensus on Almeria, Ferrol, Granada and Jaén; I am adding exceptions for Algeciras, Almuñécar, As Pontes, Dos Hermanas, La Linea, Marin, Moaña, Nigran, O Porriño, Pontevedra, Puerto de La Cruz, Redondela, San Roque and Vilagarcía de Arousa, as they now have 4–7 members and there are articles on other people from those places; merge the others as WP:SOFTDELETE, unless and until there is a parent category for people from the town. – Fayenatic London 22:01, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Mass number of categories created by user with block for problematic category editing. All of these are categories of Footballers from very small places, where there are neither categories of people from those places nor sportspeople from those places. Propose deleting all and reinstating "Category:Footballers from Galicia (Spain)" as well as "Category:People from town/comarca" on each page Librarian from Liberia (talk) 15:11, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is just the beginning, the user has also added similar categories within "Footballers from Catalonia" and "Footballers from Andalusia" which I really can't be bothered to include with this after doing all the research just to find where these pages for Galicians should be put back to. I hope an admin can take unilateral action based on precedent. If there is consensus to delete, I propose a topic ban on User talk:23shlomomaman23 from creating any new categories, due to previous blocks. Librarian from Liberia (talk) 15:30, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge the ones listed above except Lugo, Ourense and Santiago de Compostola, as well as all the ones I added below, per WP:SMALLCAT. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:35, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support all apart from the 3 mentioned by Marcocapelle above. Oculi (talk) 21:41, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. GiantSnowman 18:12, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural keep on the basis that I am already confused by this, and others will be as well, and the bundling is inappropriate. They should be dealt with separately (and not all at once, please). GiantSnowman 18:17, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • What is there to be confused about? We have a user who has three blocks in the last month for creating WP:OVERCAT categories, and he's created categories for "Footballers from X" in cases where there isn't already a category of "Sportspeople from X" to divide from, and in many many cases, there isn't even "PEOPLE from X" to start with! To put it to a British perspective, let's take Allington, Lincolnshire. There isn't a category for people from that place, never mind sportspeople from that place. Should I make a category for one hypothetical "Footballer from Allington, Lincolnshire", or should I categories him in Category:People from South Kesteven District? This user has made so many categories which all run on the same theme, I am not going to waste my life nominating each one one at a time. Librarian from Liberia (talk) 18:45, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Bundling is appropriate when the rationale is the same for the nominated categories and when it is related content. That is both the case here. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:27, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the principle, most of these are not needed at all. Spotted one that's in the wrong list (Puerto de la Cruz is in the Canary Islands, not Andalusia) and I would also add Almeria, Ferrol, Granada and Jaén to the examptions, those are pretty big places. For me the main issue is the lack of effort by the creator to populate the cats. Crowsus (talk) 06:56, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for detecting Puerto de la Cruz. I changed it in the nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:38, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Marcocapelle. Nominator obviously unexperienced and confusing del with merge ways. --Just N. (talk) 19:50, 23 August 2021 (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.

African-American expatriates in Canada[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 to Category:American expatriates in Canada. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 20:20, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge Category:African-American expatriates in Canada to Category:American expatriates in Canada
  • Nominator's rationale I do not think this meets ERGS rules. The reasons the vast number of African-Americans leave the US for Canada for various lengths of time are varried, and many have nothing to do with their race. Yes, in a historic sense there are many who went there from 1833-1861 due to issues related to slavery, but we have a specific category about fugutive slaves. The majority of biographical articles are on living people, and probably the majority of articles on people who are decesed are on people born after 1900, almost certainly after 1865. This is one of only two such categories, 2 others were incorrectly placed under the general heading. In fact, once I went through and took out those who were in the American emigrants to Canada or the Fugitivie slaves that reached Canada sub-cats we were left with just one article. I am 100% sure this is not accurate, in fact just going through the A section in Category:American expatriates in Canada I found Angela Aycock. However this is a place where the as applied analysis is worth considering, we seem to have created a sub-cat that captures what was really the intended scope of this category, and so I do not think we need this category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:24, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge per nom The explanation is a bit long-winded, but I have another explanation of why this category is redundant. What other "expatriates" category do we subdivide by specific ethnic group? What makes these people any different than other American expatriates? Dimadick (talk) 11:25, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge per nom.Seems that someone with an identity politics rationale shows up here in category discussion? --Just N. (talk) 19:54, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge per nom, subCategory:Fugitive American slaves that reached Canada is what really matters and everything else is a trivial intersection. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:56, 25 August 2021 (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:17th-century disestablishments in Oceania[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 (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 04:58, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: These only contain sub-cats for Spanish East Indies. Spanish East Indies were partly in Asia, partly in Oceania. However, the 1643 and 1764 disestablishments were in the Philippines, i.e. Asia, so in practice it is not necessary or helpful to also have them in parents for Oceania.
Note: I acknowledge that the same objection applies to many of the Oceania > Spanish East Indies categories for establishments. If this CFD is approved, I will follow up with a similar nomination for establishments categories in Oceania which only contain Philippines sub-cats. However, Category:17th-century establishments in Oceania is not wholly wrong, as it contains valid sub-cats for Australia and Tonga. – Fayenatic London 09:35, 17 August 2021 (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:Products introduced in 2075[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: speedy delete. G3 Cabayi (talk) 08:41, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Trash category, filled with vandal rubbish. Whiteguru (talk) 07:42, 17 August 2021 (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/2021_August_17&oldid=1043543786"