Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 November 9

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< November 8 November 10 >

November 9[edit]

Category:IIHF members[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. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 15:59, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:IIHF members to Category:International Ice Hockey Federation members
Nominator's rationale: Expand acronym to match parent article International Ice Hockey Federation. Resolute 23:32, 9 November 2010 (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:Peninsulas of County XXX.[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: Relist, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 November 23. Dana boomer (talk) 21:38, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Peninsulas of County Louth, Category:Peninsulas of County Wexford, Category:Peninsulas of County Donegal, Category:Peninsulas of County Kerry, Category:Peninsulas of County Mayo, Category:Peninsulas of County Waterford.

Propose merging all these categories into a single category for the state Category:Peninsulas of the Republic of Ireland.
Proposer's rationale. These categories display a level of categorisation that goes too far. Most contain only 1 article. Only one contains 5 articles and thay suffers from categorisation schizophrenia - the same thing is listed as both a headland and a peninsula. When is a peninsula not a headland? Collectively, the articles in all the categories only number 11. This is quite a small number of articles even for a national level category. A discussion has been on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland "9 Peninsulas by County - proposed deletion of sub-categories" page since October 14th. There have been no dissenting comments on the discussion. Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:04, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Proposed compromise. Taking on board the comments of jnestorius, may I suggest that the merger into a single national Peninsula category go ahead but, in addition, all of the Peninsula per County should be added to the county level category of "Landforms of County XXX". Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:11, 14 November 2010 (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:Bays of County XXX.[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: Relist, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 November 23. Dana boomer (talk) 21:38, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Bays of County Cork, Category:Bays of County Clare, Category:Bays of County Donegal, Category:Bays of County Galway, Category:Bays of County Kerry, Category:Bays of County Mayo, Category:Dublin Bay.
Propose merging all these categories into a single category for the state Category:Bays of the Republic of Ireland.
Proposer's rationale. These categories display a level of categorisation that goes too far. Collectively, the articles in all the categories only number 28 with many duplicated between counties (where the bay straddles 2 counties). This is quite a small number of articles even for a national level category. The Dublin Bay cat only lists 1 bay with the other artivles being non bay featues within the main bay. Each article names the relevant county. A discussion has been on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland "10 Bays by County - proposed deletion of sub-categories" page since October 14th. There have been no dissenting comments on the discussion. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:55, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Proposed compromise. Taking on board the comments of jnestorius, may I suggest that the merger into a single national Bay category go ahead but, in addition, all of the Bays per County should be added to the county level category of "Landforms of County XXX". Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:10, 14 November 2010 (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:American captives in Kandahar[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. — ξxplicit 03:09, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:American captives in Kandahar to Category:Kandahar detention facility detainees
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Current name is very vague; at first read I thought it would be about Americans detained by the Taliban in Kandahar. Proposed name follows the format used in Category:Afghan War detainees by facility, which I recently created to unite these topics. MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:00, 9 November 2010 (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:Political film awards[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. Echoing Dana boomer's relisting comment, it's unclear what there is to listify. We usually listify awards categories if it is populated by recipients—this category does not do that and does not appear to be its purpose. As such, renaming is what consensus sought and received. — ξxplicit 03:09, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Political film awards to Category:Political Film Society
Nominator's rationale: As someone who works quite a lot in the film area, I was surprised to stumble across this category. What, I wondered, are these "political" film awards? They turn out to be all articles about the Political Film Society and its various awards. I suggest renaming so as to accurately reflect the contents of this category, after which we could also re-categorize as a subcat of Category:Human rights awards, alongside such comparable (imo) political/human rights media categories as Category:GLAAD Media Awards, as well as Category:Film awards and Category:Political films. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:10, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support rename per nom. PC78 (talk) 03:17, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh, and I'd certainly add all the categories from the main article, as well. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:41, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify and then Delete -- This is what we almost always do for awards categories. Lists do the job much better as they can list them in date order and have a column for the citation. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:54, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Peter's left a message on my Talk page expanding a bit on this rationale. He may well be right that the vast majority of awards categories are overcategorization and if so, I've been one of the guilty parties. I'd have no objection to listifying. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:08, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dana boomer (talk) 15:55, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relisting note - While I can understand the wish to delete due to overcategorization, I am confused by the wish to listify. What are we listifying, exactly? This is not a category of articles given awards by the Political Film Society, it is a category of articles about the Political Film Society. Are we considering making a list of these articles? Dana boomer (talk) 15:55, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Rename to match title of parent article and to better reflect the content of the category. Alansohn (talk) 21:35, 10 November 2010 (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:Fur seals and sea lions[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 at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 November 20#Category:Fur seals and sea lions. — ξxplicit 03:09, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Fur seals and sea lions to Category:Eared seals
Nominator's rationale: Main article is titled eared seal. Ucucha 22:49, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 15:02, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How about Category:Otariidae and Category:Phocidae? This is just one of the many problems with using commons names for categorizing organisms: you exclude experts or interested editors from even finding the categories and force working editors into creating boondoggles with placements like "Category:fur seals and sea lions." Common names for article titles for very familiar organisms are a benefit to the reader, and an encyclopedia is ultimately written for its readers, but categories are used by both readers and editors. Readers find the categories from the articles, but editors may search out categories without the articles, and having organisms within their taxonomies under their taxonomic names can make navigation easier for editors. It can also provide locations for expert editors to head to for editing groups of articles. --Kleopatra (talk) 17:09, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That would also be fine with me. Note that "eared seals" is at least more sensible than the current double title. Ucucha 20:58, 13 November 2010 (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:African First Ladies[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. — ξxplicit 03:09, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:African First Ladies to Category:Spouses of national leaders
Nominator's rationale: Merge. An unncescary diffusion. I don't see this as analogous to splitting politicians by continent because these first ladies are almost entirely notable for being the wife of a leader.TM 21:10, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Query: Would Spouses of national leaders include Queens? If so, they would not be First Ladies. Laurel Lodged (talk)
  • Oppose -- Rename (if at all) to Category:Spouses of African national leaders. There are enough countries in Africa for it to be appropriate to have a continental category. Laurel Lodged's query is probably immaterial as there are few national kingdoms in Africa. I think there is at least one lady president, so that her husband (if she has one) would be included. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:53, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dana boomer (talk) 14:36, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or if it has to be kept, Rename as proposed by Peterkingiron. "First Lady" is an expression that is not used everywhere. In many countries, a leader's spouse hardly gets any publicity at all (as a personal note: that's how I think it should be, it's not the spouse who got elected... But that is immaterial here). Remember the surprising spouses that would sometimes unexpectedly crop up if a Soviet leader passed away? So unless African nations bestow the same kind off attention on their leaders' spouses as the US does, these spouses will generally not even meet WP:GNG. --Crusio (talk) 19:33, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and delete per nom for reasons given by Crusio. Spouses of leaders seems to be relatively an American and to some extent European obsession. I don't see a need to split the spouses off by continent unless there is some specific reason to do so, e.g., if all the African spouses formed some organisation of African leaders' spouses (which they haven't). Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:13, 9 November 2010 (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:Samurai anime[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. Dana boomer (talk) 20:46, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Samurai anime (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Duplicate of Category:Chanbara anime and manga. All articles listed in this category are already listed in the Chanbara category. Also doesn't follow the standard naming convention of anime and manga categories. See Category:Anime and manga by topic and Category:Anime and manga by genre. —Farix (t | c) 19:42, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The assertion that they're all listed in the other category is wrong for starters. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 20:08, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dana boomer (talk) 14:36, 9 November 2010 (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:Publications established in 2011[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. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 15:51, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Publications established in 2011 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: This is a category for publications that do not exist yet, violating WP:NOTCRYSTAL. Does not contain any notable publications (how can it be different, they don't exist yet). I can't imagine that we'll have anything even early in 2011 that is notable immediately, but if there is, cat can be recreated then. Crusio (talk) 13:28, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I created the cat, and deletion makes sense to me too. Top Jim (talk) 13:31, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with an eye to recreation in January, or the esbalisment of a notable (or article worthy) magazine in 2011, which ever is later. The structure of the parent category argues that this should exsist one we are actually in 2011. - J Greb (talk) 16:26, 11 November 2010 (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:Sculpture techiques[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. CSD C2.A. Typographic and spelling fixes. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 15:57, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Sculpture techiques (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Obvious mistake WRT Category:Sculpture techniques. Comte0 (talk) 10:01, 9 November 2010 (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:1878 establishments in Australia[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. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 16:13, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:1878 establishments in Australia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Underpopulated category. Has a single entry. Unnecessary AussieLegend (talk) 09:56, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- we have Category:1878 in Australia which is quite sufficient (Crusoe8181 (talk) 10:02, 9 November 2010 (UTC))[reply]
In fact there are numerous categories in the same tree with no pages and a single, underpopulated (typically 3 or fewer pages) category in each. The tree doesn't seem to be of any use and navigating through the articles in the categories requires regular replacement of the left mouse button because you have to click so many times to get anywhere. --AussieLegend (talk) 10:06, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Category is part of a larger scheme under development. See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 September 23#Category:Establishments_in the United States by year. The parent category of the hierarchy, Category:Establishments by country was created on August 15, so instead of deleting single-item categories, I suggest making an effort to populate the Australian branch would be more constructive. __meco (talk) 17:05, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So, what you're proposing is that we write a whole heap of articles just to populate your category structure? Categories should only exist when there are a reasonable number of articles to add to them and there don't seem to be here. We already have a category structure that's working fine for Australian articles and this rather empty structure partially duplicates it, but makes navigation awkward and therefore makes the tree, for the most part, useless. --AussieLegend (talk) 17:40, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, standard practice with such timeline category hierarchies is to upmerge when we reach so far back that having categories for each single year is less than useful. The articles would then be upmerged to Category:1870s establishments in Australia or to Category:19th-century establishments in Australia. However, as has been shown this seems not to be the appropriate solution here as there appears to be an ample supply of belonging articles that have yet to be entered into this scheme. __meco (talk) 20:39, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think that this general scheme is gross over-categorization, at least as far as Australia is concerned, so I stand by my delete I indicated in the discussion below. --Bduke (Discussion) 01:27, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as part of the wider scheme Category:1878 establishments by country, or possibly merge into Category:1870s establishments in Australia. Lugnuts (talk) 19:14, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep unless it can be shown that there are no more articles. It took me no time at all to add three articles and there are many more that I found. I suspect that the same applies to the other categories nominated. We would probably be justified to create a populated place category for Australia in 1878 since there are ample articles to populate it. In fact, adding one line to one template should populate all of these categories. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:46, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - part of a wider scheme. Did anyone else think to actually try to populate it? Now contains 30 articles. Grutness...wha? 10:20, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps populating this and other similar categories should have been done by the people who created the structure and then abandoned it, blindly expecting others to magically realise the categories existed. --AussieLegend (talk) 11:12, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, they've only existed a couple of weeks - it's quite likely that someone was going to get back to it. I get the feeling the editor who made these bit off more than (s)he could chew by creating a huge number of categories at one time. It would have made more sense to make one, fill it, then make another, and so on through the 100+ categories they seem to be working on (see here. Mind you, a {{popcat}} would have been useful. Grutness...wha? 11:38, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This cat has only existed since 28 October but Category:1872 establishments in Australia was created a month earlier. User:Meco announced that he had started creating the structure back in August,[1] apparently without discussing it first. He has done some limited populating, but nothing to Category:1872 establishments in Australia since it was first created. I agree wholeheartedly that the categories should have been populated before moving on. He has gone about the whole process backwards leaving hundreds of empty cats, or cats with a single entry, in his wake. --AussieLegend (talk) 14:14, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I believe these can all be automatically populated by the template that includes them in other categories by adding one line. I would think that if this was added, inclusion in the parent categories would be conditional on not being in one of these year categories. Vegaswikian (talk) 08:51, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note. The Australia place names template has been modified to add those articles to this series of categories if it exists. This template is already categorizing into many categories, so this addition is a nit. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:09, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If meco actually populated these categories, they wouldn't be getting brought here or speedied, but he has decided that his way is the only way and these will keep coming up as he seems more interested in adding to the already bloated and sparsely populated categorical tree than fixing these recurring problems. Recommend that the closing admin strongly advises Meco to slow down and fully populate these categories as he creates them. It's not the duty of the community to try and clean up for his actions so he can continue to create an even larger problem with these underpopulated cats. Personally, I find the whole scheme to be useless due to how rediculously large it is and how each category has very articles in it, if Meco actually populated this, my perception could change.--Terrillja talk 19:39, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As part of the broad international scope of such establishment categories. Alansohn (talk) 21:37, 10 November 2010 (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:1872 establishments in Australia[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. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 16:12, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:1872 establishments in Australia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Underpopulated category. Has a single entry. Unnecessary AussieLegend (talk) 09:43, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- we have Category:1872 in Australia which is quite sufficient (Crusoe8181 (talk) 10:02, 9 November 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Keep. Category is part of a larger scheme under development. See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 September 23#Category:Establishments in the United States by year. The parent category of the hierarchy, Category:Establishments by country was created on August 15, so instead of deleting single-item categories, I suggest making an effort to populate the Australian branch would be more constructive. __meco (talk) 17:06, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So, what you're proposing is that we write a whole heap of articles just to populate your category structure? Categories should only exist when there are a reasonable number of articles to add to them and there don't seem to be here. We already have a category structure that's working fine for Australian articles and this rather empty structure partially duplicates it, but makes navigation awkward and therefore makes the tree, for the most part, useless. --AussieLegend (talk) 17:39, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See response in section above. __meco (talk) 20:40, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps populating this and other similar categories should have been done by the people who created the structure and then abandoned it, blindly expecting others to magically realise the categories existed. --AussieLegend (talk) 11:12, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As part of the broad international scope of such establishment categories. Alansohn (talk) 21:38, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The "broad international scope of such establishment categories" has only existed since August 2010 when a single editor decided that they needed to exist. Perhaps those voting to keep could consider explaining why these categories, which broadly duplicate other categories, are useful. --AussieLegend (talk) 22:38, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They do? What other categories specifically deal with Australian establishments by year? Sure, there are Australia by year categories, but they don't cover the same ground, as they include events within those years overall, not just than precedents, establishments, and inaugural events. It seems to me to be a perfectly logical and sensible type of category to have, as a cross-reference between the categories for Australia by year and those for by-year establishments. Grutness...wha? 23:28, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Organizations, places or other things founded or established in Australia in the year xxxx." - "Other things" is a very broad criteria to include. As for "Organizations", we don't have any of those. --AussieLegend (talk) 02:57, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So you think the category should be deleted because the description of it in the header is vague and uses US English? Personally I would have thought that rewording it would have saved a lot of bother and left a potentially useful series of categories. Grutness...wha? 06:58, 11 November 2010 (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:Categories named after association football clubs by country[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. Deleting would drop the subcategories completely out of the Category:Categories named after association football clubs, and even leave Category:Categories named after Scottish football clubs uncategorized. — ξxplicit 03:09, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Categories named after association football clubs by country to Category:Categories named after association football clubs
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary extra layer of categorization between Category:Categories named after association football clubs and the country-specific subcategories. (Category creator notified using Template:Cfd-notify) -- Black Falcon (talk) 04:41, 9 November 2010 (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:Bathgate Thistle F.C.[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, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 November 23. Dana boomer (talk) 20:48, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Bathgate Thistle F.C. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Small, eponymous category—containing only the main article and one subcategory (otherwise categorized)—for a football club. I could not find other content pages which could be added to the category at this time. (Category creator notified using Template:Cfd-notify) -- Black Falcon (talk) 04:35, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This does seem to be the structure adopted for other team-based categories, enabling the player sub-category and grouping into parent categories for Area and Sport. There is maybe a question as to whether the full category structure is appropriate for Junior teams - this is the only one to have a full category structure? AllyD (talk) 19:07, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Navigation could be preserved by placing the club article in the appropriate Sport in {place} category, which I see has been done. (Also, there is Category:Footballers in Scotland by club, though that is not subdivided by council area). From the club article, readers could navigate to articles about players and/or the players category (perhaps through a "See also" link to the category). -- Black Falcon (talk) 20:11, 9 November 2010 (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/2010_November_9&oldid=1211535831"