Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 February 7

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< February 6 February 8 >

February 7[edit]

Old sports teams[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: no consensus. bibliomaniac15 22:11, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nominattor's rationale: No good reason to have two (or in one case three) different categories for the same sports team. * Pppery * it has begun... 23:18, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Isn't it possible that there are Wikipedians interested in the San Diego Chargers but not the Los Angeles Chargers? StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 01:15, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Could be. {{User:UBX/NFL-Chargers retro 2}} seems as though it's not good to merge those. -- WOSlinker (talk) 09:15, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • In that case delete the old categories entirely, since reminisc[ing] of a sports team is not an appropriate basis for collaboration. Furthermore, these categories are all subcategories of their proposed merge targets, so the erroneous implication being raised here is already implied by the current layout (see WP:SUBCAT)* Pppery * it has begun... 16:08, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Pppery, please could you explain the problem with reminisc[ing] of a sports team? I don't generally edit sports-related pages, but I am trying to fix the grammar of these categories if they are kept. TSventon (talk) 15:18, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's not a grammar problem, it's that such a category does not ha[ve] the capacity to facilitate coordination and collaboration between users for the improvement of the encyclopedia, and thus is not appropriate per WP:USERCAT. * Pppery * it has begun... 15:35, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all To keep the project welcoming, we normally give wide latitude to editors to self identify in the interest of collective work on Wikipedia. This seems similar to saying "you can't show you are interested in a historical country, only its current successor." I note that the old sports teams do have their own categories and other content separate from the current incarnations, such as Category:Washington Redskins, which probably benefit from collective effort. UnitedStatesian (talk) 16:13, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Deleting userbox-populated categories (which all of these are) does not deny editors the right to self-identify, and I fail to see how it could possibly be seen as unwelcoming. * Pppery * it has begun... 00:19, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The cats certainly make it easier for editors with common interests to find each other. UnitedStatesian (talk) 03:35, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I left a notice of this discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sports. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:36, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge it's the same team but different names. The US shouldn't be treated differently to every other country, where we have one article/set of categories/set of templates for sports teams, regardless of how many times they've changed their names. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:41, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Two of the above have not only changed names, but also relocated cities, which presumably changed their fanbases significantly. UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:30, 12 March 2022 (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:Fictional soubenjutsuka[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 to Category:Fictional whip users. bibliomaniac15 22:08, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category is an indiscriminate collection of fictional characters who have used whips. Furthermore, this term seems to indicate someone who practices a Japanese martial art. Most of these characters have never been associated with that term. ―Susmuffin Talk 17:33, 7 February 2022 (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:Opinion polling for United kingdom votes in the 2020s[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 rename WP:C2E. – Fayenatic London 16:17, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: "K" in Kingdom needs to be capitalised. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 14:25, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agree Apologies, that was a typo Llewee (talk) 14:29, 7 February 2022 (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:Christ's Hospital staff[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 February 15#Category:Christ's Hospital staff

Category:Children of Christian VI of Denmark[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: no consensus. – Fayenatic London 15:51, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: SMALLCAT ★Trekker (talk) 00:25, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am not sure exactly what the criteria is but it is not like a category such as Category:Children of Edward II of England contains significantly more categories (should/could that category be added to this discussion?). The way I see it, both of these categories are part of a series of standard categories for issue of monarchs from a given country by monarch. The parent category CategoryChristian VI of Denmark may not contain a lot of pages at the moment but it is likely to do so in the future (a lot of existing pages have simply not been placed there yet) and it will therefore be usefull with some standard subcategories such as "Children of...", "Court of..." and "Cultural depictions of...", cf. similar categories for British monarchs etx.Ramblersen2 (talk) 12:44, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Other stuff existing is not really relevant, as far as I know no category for children of any person has been kept from deletion if it had less than 3 articles. I don't think "Children of Foo" is a very good standard category to have for monarchs since in different from a court which is bound to have dozens if not hundreds of individuals most people don't have that many children, and if a dead person (which most historical monarchs are) only had 2 or less children its not like they can ever have more, so there is little chance of expansion in these cases.★Trekker (talk) 21:53, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. * Pppery * it has begun... 23:18, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:58, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, small cat and unlikely to grow.--Mvqr (talk) 14:15, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Repurpose -- Category:Royal family of Denmark in 18th century might make a viable merge target for this and similar categories. Category:House of Oldenburg is a mess since it is dealing with a number of different polities. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:15, 12 February 2022 (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/2022_February_7&oldid=1077175058"