Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 November 15

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< November 14 November 16 >

November 15[edit]

Category:Concordia Stingers basketball players[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. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 22:03, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: To reflect category contents. User:Namiba 14:11, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most sibling categories do not make a gender distinction either. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:05, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what you mean? There are hundreds of gender divided basketball categories, see Category:College men's basketball players in the United States and Category:College women's basketball players in the United States. That few categories exist for Canadian U Sports doesn't mean that a gender distinction isn't made here.--User:Namiba 13:37, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Those are mostly professional sports teams, not collegiate level teams. I think there aren't individual categories for men's basketball and women's basketball at most Canadian universities because the number of articles about Canadian basketball players who played in Canadian universities is relatively low.--User:Namiba 17:32, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • If professional sports teams categories are not divided by gender, then there seems also no need for a gender divide for collegiate level teams categories. 06:29, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:27, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not only in Canada, but in fact in almost every country, hardly any club category is divided by gender. They are mostly national categories by gender. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:35, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is exactly my point. Only in the United States the club categories are divided by gender, not in other countries. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:36, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Just like most American college teams, Concordia also has a women's team called the Stingers and their athletic website differentiates them (see here). Just move the category to the correct convention, Canadian college basketball is no different from the US in this regard. Rikster2 (talk) 21:54, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 20:39, 15 November 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:Architecture of the Taifas[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: withdrawn (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 06:01, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete, not a defining characteristic, and move the last two articles to Category:Moorish architecture in Spain (the first three articles are already in a subcategory of that). Marcocapelle (talk) 08:53, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: Not sure that the nom's reasoning is clear to me in this particular case, so please let me know if there's a more technical reason I'm missing. But otherwise the category should be kept for the same reason we have categories like Almohad architecture, Nasrid architecture, Mamluk architecture, etc. The Taifa period is one of the periods and subclassifications used in reliable sources about Moorish/Western Islamic architecture (e.g. see references like [1], [2], [3]). These periods should be subcategories of Category:Moorish architecture (via another parent category or not, as needed). Monuments like the Aljaferia and the Alcazaba of Malaga are notable in part because they're the major monuments of this period, as those sources describe. That said, if a name change is needed, that's fine. Also, the whole hierarchy of categories under Moorish architecture is still awkward and incomplete, which probably contributes to avoidable overlap and uneven categorization of articles, so I very much appreciate the efforts in trying to clean this up. Thanks, R Prazeres (talk) 18:41, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:28, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 20:38, 15 November 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:Time viewers[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) Qwerfjkltalk 22:04, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: A very rare concept that makes this a WP:SMALLCAT or WP:NARROWCAT. This may fit with Time travel devices but I would also support deletion for the two articles it would effect. Jontesta (talk) 17:21, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom, with no prejudice to AfD if deemed necessary. The redirect is already in the merge target. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:14, 16 November 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:Cicindelinae[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. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 22:05, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Taxonomic update - the former treatment of the subfamily Cicindelinae within the family Carabidae has been considered unsupported and instead there is sufficient and growing support for it to be treated as family Cicindelidae, a sister of family Carabidae within the superfamily category:Caraboidea. See related discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Insects#RFC:_Cicindelinae_->_Cicindelidae Shyamal (talk) 06:40, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • This can be a speedy rename per WP:C2C. The formal name of the group, tiger beetles, has already been changed at the target page, so going to CfD is only a formality at this point. This current category of Cicindelinae is incorrect and needs to be corrected. KoA (talk) 17:04, 16 November 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:Storfors stubs[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) Qwerfjkltalk 22:06, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Extremely underpopulated stub category for a small town, with no evidence that it was ever approved by WikiProject Stub sorting.
As always, we require around 60 articles before a standalone stub category is justified, but there are just four articles here -- and Storfors is a small town with a population of just 2,337 according to its article, so there's virtually no prospect of getting it to 60 articles. There aren't even 60 things linking to its article at all, and even the links there are mostly just comprise navigational box links from other municipalities rather than things in Storfors, so even a dedicated stub template isn't really necessary here for such a small town with so few directly-connected topics to tag.
And precisely because stub categories carry a 60-article minimum for entry, they have to be approved by the WikiProject, and are not a thing that just any user is free to create willy-nilly for just any topic of personal interest -- but I can find no evidence that the creator of these ever submitted this for WikiProject approval. Bearcat (talk) 04:21, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support and in addition manually move the articles to Category:Sweden stubs and also delete the template. Storfors is even too small for the stub template to be kept. Note that there are another two small stub categories but they can normally be upmerged. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:32, 15 November 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:MODHAUS singles[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 November 23#Category:MODHAUS singles

A-League players[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. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 22:07, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There were two American soccer leagues in the 1990s named "A-League" so therefore we should have two categories.
  • The first was the American Professional Soccer League (1990–1996) which used the name A-League in 1995 and 1996. The first category proposed for merging contains players from those two seasons.
  • The second league was the USISL/USL A-League (1997–2004). That league was operated by an organization called "USISL" (1997–1998) which was later renamed to "USL". BLAIXX 02:37, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. GiantSnowman 21:59, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom - we only need category for one league, regardless of name changes (and this is how it works for all other leagues). GiantSnowman 22:02, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as we do one category per league, regardless of the previous names of the league. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:10, 16 November 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.

USL League Two players[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. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 22:08, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: USL League Two is a current soccer league. It has been renamed many times but the players should still be grouped in the same category. One of the former names has already had its category merged (Category:Premier Development League players). BLAIXX 00:38, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. GiantSnowman 21:59, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom - we only need category for one league, regardless of name changes (and this is how it works for all other leagues). GiantSnowman 22:02, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as we do one category per league, regardless of the previous names of the league. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:10, 16 November 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.

USL Second Division players[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. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 22:08, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The USL Second Division was a soccer league that existed from 1995 to 2010. It was renamed several times (see linked article for precise history) but is a single league with a single article. I don't see any point categorizing its players based on which name it used at the time. BLAIXX 00:27, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. GiantSnowman 21:58, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom - we only need category for one league, regardless of name changes (and this is how it works for all other leagues). GiantSnowman 22:01, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as we do one category per league, regardless of the previous names of the league. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:10, 16 November 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_November_15&oldid=1123464952"