Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 August 16

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< August 15 August 17 >

August 16[edit]

Category:Soviet balloonists[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. MER-C 09:24, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: A number of reasons:
(1) All of its potential members would be redundant to Category:Russian balloonists or similar constituent countries.
(2) Its only actual member (Victor Zagainov) is already located in Category:Kazakhstani balloonists.
(3) Zagainov was the first and only hot air balloon champion of the USSR (per the article).
(4) Therefore, this meets WP:SMALLCAT.
All of Category:Balloonists by nationality probably needs to be looked at, but this is the only child category I know for sure doesn't need to exist. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 23:59, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, the SMALLCAT exception rule "unless such categories are part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme" applies here. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:30, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Meh/Oppose. As long as Category:Soviet aviators exists then this category is reasonable. I don't find any of the 3 reasons (reasons 3 and 4 are the same thing) in the nom convincing. DexDor (talk) 06:31, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Marcocapelle's argument. Reasonable exception. Dimadick (talk) 06:58, 18 August 2019 (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.
  • Question Are there really enough balloonists articles to justify categorization by nationality? Also with the aviators an easy upmerge, maybe for small nationality categories we should just put in the aviators category and in the general balloonist category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:53, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Johnpacklambert: I would've guessed that, but the people have spoken it seems. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 16:57, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Television series about friendship[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. MER-C 09:16, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The scope of this category is just too broad. Every TV show has friends in it, that doesn't mean they are about friendship. There's been a rash lately of over-categorization of shows to the point where an article has half a screen's worth of categories pointing out every aspect of it, whether it's defining or not. ... discospinster talk 22:18, 16 August 2019 (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:Animated television series about friendship[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. MER-C 09:16, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The scope of this category is just too broad. Every TV show has friends in it, that doesn't mean they are about friendship. There's been a rash lately of over-categorization of shows to the point where an article has half a screen's worth of categories pointing out every aspect of it, whether it's defining or not. ... discospinster talk 22:17, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NONDEF. A massive amount of shows contain friends, but none are specifically about friendship.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 22:42, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Reasonable categorization by subject matter. Dimadick (talk) 06:59, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Overly broad, largely nondefining. Trivialist (talk) 16:44, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete God knows that friends and friendship have different meanings. SpinnerLaserz (talk) 05:31, 19 August 2019 (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:Harmon prize winners[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 August 24#Category:Harmon prize winners

Category:Buildings and structures in Poquoson, Virginia[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. MER-C 09:19, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Small category (1 article) in a small city. TM 20:36, 16 August 2019 (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:Content-related user templates[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. MER-C 09:19, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The category is for user templates about quality of contributions, from stubs to featured articles and images. —⁠andrybak (talk) 19:55, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No objection from category creator (me) so rename per C2E --DannyS712 (talk) 21:03, 16 August 2019 (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:JVP insurrections in film[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 August 24#Category:JVP insurrections in film

Category:Newspaper user templates[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. MER-C 09:20, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There is no separate category for magazines, and the category is small enough to include both themes for user templates. —⁠andrybak (talk) 19:29, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support that is a great idea to rename this category.Catfurball (talk) 18:48, 19 August 2019 (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.

Police and crime commissioners[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. MER-C 09:20, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming:
Nominator's rationale: The office of police and crime commissioner is unique to England and Wales, so the (UK) national qualifier for the party is superfluous. Opera hat (talk) 18:49, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Rathfelder (talk) 18:05, 19 August 2019 (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:Honda Center[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. MER-C 09:32, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: A sports venue. Content is a small list of events that happened there. Not defining. Rathfelder (talk) 11:52, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: other sport such as boxing, judo and etc do have sport venues and why this is nominated to be deleted? CASSIOPEIA(talk) 12:00, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Generally sporting events are not defined by the venue. Rathfelder (talk) 17:39, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Rathfelder then all the venue cat under all sports shoudl be deleted as well and not jut MMA. I am ok for all deleted or all kept and not just one but not all the other. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 04:25, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question, in which tree can we find these other sports venue categories? I was looking in Category:Sports venues in California and could not find a sports venue category. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:54, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support nomination while there is no answer to the question I raised. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:18, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~~ OxonAlex - talk 18:34, 16 August 2019 (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:YouTube 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. MER-C 09:17, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Empty stub category. No corresponding stub template. SD0001 (talk) 17:49, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom; it was created in 2017 and never (apparently) used. Her Pegship (really?) 19:19, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Grutness...wha? 19:20, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. We do have Category:YouTubers stubs; however, even putting aside the fact that it is underpopulated and should probably be upmerged, one subcategory does not justify the existence of this one. -- Black Falcon (talk) 20:15, 17 August 2019 (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:Silent Hill films[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. MER-C 09:21, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT - small and with little potential for enlargement. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 17:16, 16 August 2019 (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:Contra (video game series)[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. MER-C 09:21, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per the name of the series page, Contra (series). ZXCVBNM (TALK) 17:04, 16 August 2019 (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:Railway stations served by East Midlands Trains[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 procedural close, merged this discussion into Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2019_August_20#Category:Railway_stations_served_by_East_Midlands_Trains (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 18:33, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: East Midlands Trains franchise will be superseded by East Midlands Railway on 18 August, all stations currently operated by EMT will transfer to EMR plus a couple more on the Barton line that can be added manually. Precedent is to rename a category when a UK rail franchise changes hands, e.g. Railway stations served by Virgin Trains East Coast was renamed Railway stations served by London North Eastern Railway. Kreistoul (talk) 10:11, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. But at the same time I wonder if it sensible to have a tree of categories that change their name every few years. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:17, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support/Delete. Categories should be for permanent characteristics (or at least more permanent characteristics than this) and a station may exist for hundreds of years. Many stations (e.g. Liverpool Lime Street railway station) are in 5-6 of these categories. It would be better to categorize by railway lines than by TOCs. E.g. "Stations on the Bristol–Exeter line". DexDor (talk) 06:32, 19 August 2019 (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.

Subcategories of Category:Religion user templates[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. MER-C 09:22, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: To make more general categories (e.g. to include "User interested in Christianity" userbox) and for consistency with parent categories (Category:Christianity templates, Category:Jews and Judaism templates, Category:Islam templates, Category:Paganism templates). See also previous discussion about Muslim user templates. —⁠andrybak (talk) 09:44, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, multiple templates are not exclusively meant for adherents of a certain religion, for example there is even a "No Christianity" user template among them. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:08, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The templates are not Jewish. :) Debresser (talk) 14:52, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, per my comments in earlier discussion. (And 😄 @Debresser.) 🖖 ChristTrekker 🗣 12:43, 20 August 2019 (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:Dave Barry[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 August 31#Category:Dave Barry

Category:WFAN (AM)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 September 1#Category:WFAN (AM)

Category:Romani people in film[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. MER-C 09:23, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename to clarify that this is intended for films that focus on the Romani people in some manner; not for incidental or non-significant appearances. DonIago (talk) 20:14, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. All "in film" categories should be renamed to "films about" for the same reason. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:26, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Not all films listed in this category are about Romani people per se but they feature significantly. It would be difficult to describe The Wolf Man as about Romani people but the inclusion is sufficient to merit mention. As with similarly named categories, the intention is to create a directory so that researchers can quickly locate items that feature Romani people. For that reason I think "in film" works, while "films about" would essentially mean that this information would be erased. Bohemian Alchemist (talk) 11:20, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The both Wolf Man articles should be removed from the category, the articles do not even mention Romani. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:13, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is a major plot feature of both films and both articles mention Romani people extensively and directly using the slang "gypsies". Bohemian Alchemist (talk) 22:57, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are right about the gypsies, but still the films aren't about Romani, they are about werewolves. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:56, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please see WP:CATDEF. A category should be applied when it is a defining characteristic of the subject of the article to which it is being applied. If the Romani "feature significantly" in the films in question, then retitling the category shouldn't especially impact whether it can be applied to the film article in question. However, I saw this category applied to Bram Stoker's Dracula, and I have to ask whether the film would be in any way meaningfully different in the Romani were replaced with non-Romani? If the answer to that is no, then a Romani category is not appropriate for the film regardless of the category name. You may also wish to review this discussion, which laid the groundwork for many categories being renamed from "in film" to "Films about" with general support for such efforts. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 02:01, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 09:06, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Erik, in the archived discussion I linked to above the relisting notice I had brought up "featuring" for consideration, and other editors preferred "about". Not to say we can't use it in this instance, but it's not a new idea is all... DonIago (talk) 18:38, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're right. I was thinking of categories being like lists when that's not the case. "About" seems fine here, then. Support. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 03:16, 23 August 2019 (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:Wikipedians who are under investigation by the categories police[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. MER-C 13:57, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is the same joke category. We really should just have one to keep Category:Wikipedians who retain deleted categories on their userpages as clean as possible. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 21:19, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Pings @Mr. Guye, Epicgenius, Toddst1, Benjaminikuta, Pablo X, and Floquenbeam: You all include this joke category in your userspace or usertalkspace. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 21:21, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the ping, MJL, I'm glad we're pinging affected editors at CFD now; that goes a long way towards mitigating the annoyance I've felt in the past here. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:36, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bemused that we're worried about the capitalization of joke categories, and about keeping Category:Wikipedians who retain deleted categories on their userpages "clean". The whole point of that category is a compromise to allow people (like me) a little self-expression using categories on their user page without messing up "real" red-linked categories that other editors are maintaining. If we're going to start policing it, that seems like it defeats the purpose. What is the plan here; forcing people with the non-preferred capitalization to change? I'd suggest that once people have accepted the necessity of Category:Wikipedians who retain deleted categories on their userpages, just leave them alone. That said, I'm not entirely sure any of the six of us really care about the capitalization in this particular case. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:36, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Floq. Benjamin (talk) 21:43, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 09:04, 16 August 2019 (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:Republika Srpska official football team[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. MER-C 09:18, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Same as Category:Republika Srpska international footballers and Category:Republika Srpska official football team managers, this category supposedly covers non-existent Republika Srpska national football team, and several associate articles. "National team" as defined by Wikipedia article National team usually doesn't exists at the level of regional football association and regional administrative unit or entity, which is part of FIFA/UEFA affiliated nation/state (in this case Bosnia and Herzegovina) - in essence, it's like saying and creating category "Swabian" or "Bavarian national football team" instead of "German national football team". Few articles included in this category are on players, who are already categorized in other appropriate categories. Apart from being on "national team" on local administrative entity which isn't a nation, category practically overlaps with Category:Bosnia and Herzegovina national football team - first is administrative part of a nation of Bosnia, and another is nation of Bosnia affiliated UEFA and FIFA member. It can't be this kind of separate categorization on Bosnia and Herzegovina national team, or sportsmen/women for that matter, based on country's administrative entities, and against WP:NOTA, WP:NFOOTY, WP:SPORTBASIC and especially WP:FOOTYN. Finally, it fails in following Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Category completely. ౪ Santa ౪99° 02:44, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Interestingly, both of these articles, which seemingly senior experienced User:Grutness, and admin at that, was able to dig out, are created by same editor, User:Calapez, and both of the articles stand there without single references, and both in a way describing and following obvious separatists political pattern in contested areas, both in real world and on Wikipedia, and both have nothing in common, not even remotely, with case of Republika Srpska regional association, which is vital part of Bosnian association and not separate and/or separatist (for now at least) - oh, wait, there is one source in both of these and in article on Republika Srpska, self-published, by mysterious "Non-FIFA News agency" at non-fifa-news-agency.netau.net, archived at Wayback machine for 2009 than moved to blogger.com for 2012, and defunct ever since.--౪ Santa ౪99° 07:32, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I could name a dozen more such articles, by several different editors, many of them well sourced. I'd suggest looking at the articles for the national football teams of Tibet, the Isle of Wight, Zanzibar, Sapmi, Occitania, Kurdistan, Northern Cyprus, Trnasnistria,Zanzibar, Somaliland, Kárpátalja, Tamil Eelam, Panjab, Székely Land, Cascadia, and Matabeleland, to name just a few. And it's a tenet of Wikipedian editing not to bring either an editor's experience or lack of it into consideration when discussing an editor's opinions or !votes. In any case, if you look closely, I'm agreeing with you as far as deletion is concerned, so there is no need for such back-handed personal attacks - if there ever is. And given your history of arguments involving articles related to Srpska, I would suggest that throwing stones from a glass house is not a good idea in any case. As for Calapez, that editor has created many football-related articles, and did not create all the articles I mentioned. I further note the pointy prods you added to the articles, all of which were quickly removed by other editors. Grutness...wha? 05:22, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I actually noticed that you are agreeing with me concerning issue, and looking at your last reply the strange feeling overwhelms me that you somewhat misread the way I addressed you as "seemingly senior experienced User, and admin at that", and so on - to call it "personal attack" is a bit far-fetched; I brought your "experience" to the table, now you are bringing my "history", which is more significant for the discussion I can't tell - it was intended to point on seriousness of this case and its broader context, which is, I (and probably some others) believe, contentious if not outright and completely against most basic project rules and guidelines (I am fanatical football aficionado too, but I never even heard of majority of those "national" teams included into aforementioned Cat). However, now I am compelled to respond, nevertheless. I know you can recite team after team, it doesn't mean that you should, because vast majority shouldn't be there at all to begin with, but also because they can't be related in significant way with a specific case - I checked entire Category:European national and official selection-teams not affiliated to FIFA my self, and although few are reasonably notable but mostly unverifiable and poorly or not sourced at all, it's filled with "well sourced" articles on "national", and of lately "official" (which is clever little WP:MASK for notability), teams of every region and locality imaginable, especially where separatist politics takes significant role, and similar feelings are mirrored on the project. But, that cherry-picking doesn't make any more comparable such cases of Tibet and Northern Cyprus with Srpska or Gozo for that matter. Great that you checked my history of "arguments" involving Srpska, only you should immediately point to those which you find problematic, and also significant for my arguments here. Yes, I proded those "national" teams like Gozo national team and such "notable" European football institutes, I wonder on what grounds they intend to keep those articles, and yes, someone removed prod, such as the step in a procedure. But, how you know that they are "pointy", anyway.--౪ Santa ౪99° 11:05, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 08:42, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - a regional exhibition team at best, does not need this category. GiantSnowman 08:50, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – not only the team exists since 1992, has played 15 non-FIFA games at senior level, but mantains a coaching stuff for the senior team, and also for all youth levels which they have many: U13, U15, U17, U19, U21 and U23. At youth level they have been very active constantly selecting the best talents from the territory and organising and participating in national and international tournaments. Except for that first game in 1992 which they played as the national team of the self-proclaimed inependent Republika Srpska, after 1995 and the Dayton Agreement, RS has been part of Bosnia and Herzegovina and participates at both league and national team level to form Bosnia and Herzegovina. The only problem has been the more radical political parties of Bosniaks and Croats who openly want to see R. Srpska desapear, both as political entity, and obviouslt in sports as well. Here we have two books that explain well the situation: Football in Southeastern Europe: From Ethnic Homogenization to Reconciliation by John Hughson and Fiona Skillen, or Violent Places: Everyday Politics and Public Lives in Post-Dayton Bosnia by Tobias Greiff. FkpCascais (talk) 15:51, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • If not kept, merge to Category:Football in Republika Srpska, there is no reason to remove the content of this category from that hierarchy. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:56, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 09:04, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per GiantSnowman. Republika Srpska currently doesn't have a FIFA-granted member status, thus this category is not relevant.--Darwinek (talk) 23:31, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Is it really necessary to relist discussions when and/or if they are at 3:1 for deletion (in this case Grutness, GiantSnowman, and me) ? Now with Darwinek expressed opinion (and vote) it's 4:1 for deletion - sometimes much closer and more vague and ambiguous cases go through with less uncertainty of outcome. --౪ Santa ౪99° 20:43, 20 August 2019 (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:Republika Srpska official football team managers[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. MER-C 09:18, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Similarly as Category:Republika Srpska international footballers, this category supposedly covers articles on managers of non-existent Republika Srpska national football team, which primarily fails on WP:NOTA, and several associate articles. "National team" as defined by Wikipedia article National team usually doesn't exists at the level of regional administrative unit or entity, which is part of FIFA/UEFA affiliated nation/state (in this case Bosnia and Herzegovina) - in essence, it's like saying and creating category "Swabian" or "Bavarian national football team" instead of "German national football team". Few articles included in this category are on players, who are already categorized in other appropriate categories. Apart from being on "national team" on local administrative entity which isn't a nation, category practically overlaps with Category:Bosnia and Herzegovina national football team - first is administrative part of a nation of Bosnia, and another is nation of Bosnia affiliated UEFA and FIFA member. It can't be this kind of separate categorization on Bosnia and Herzegovina national team, or sportsmen/women for that matter, based on country's administrative entities, and against WP:NOTA, WP:NFOOTY, WP:SPORTBASIC and especially WP:FOOTYN. Finally, it fails in following Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Category completely. ౪ Santa ౪99° 01:34, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Interestingly, both of these articles, which seemingly senior experienced User:Grutness, and admin at that, was able to dig out, are created by same editor, User:Calapez, and both of the articles stand there without single references, and both in a way describing and following obvious separatists political pattern in contested areas, both in real world and on Wikipedia, and both have nothing in common, not even remotely, with case of Republika Srpska regional association, which is vital part of Bosnian association and not separate and/or separatist (for now at least) - oh, wait, there is one source in both of these and in article on Republika Srpska, self-published, by mysterious "Non-FIFA News agency" at non-fifa-news-agency.netau.net, archived at Wayback machine for 2009 than moved to blogger.com for 2012, and defunct ever since.--౪ Santa ౪99° 07:16, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I could name a dozen more such articles, by several different editors, many of them well sourced. I'd suggest looking at the articles for the national football teams of Tibet, the Isle of Wight, Zanzibar, Sapmi, Occitania, Kurdistan, Northern Cyprus, Trnasnistria,Zanzibar, Somaliland, Kárpátalja, Tamil Eelam, Panjab, Székely Land, Cascadia, and Matabeleland, to name just a few. And it's a tenet of Wikipedian editing not to bring either an editor's experience or lack of it into consideration when discussing an editor's opinions or !votes. In any case, if you look closely, I'm agreeing with you as far as deletion is concerned, so there is no need for such back-handed personal attacks - if there ever is. And given your history of arguments involving articles related to Srpska, I would suggest that throwing stones from a glass house is not a good idea in any case. As for Calapez, that editor has created many football-related articles, and did not create all the articles I mentioned. I further note the pointy prods you added to the articles, all of which were quickly removed by other editors. Grutness...wha? 05:21, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I actually noticed that you are agreeing with me concerning issue, and looking at your last reply the strange feeling overwhelms me that you somewhat misread the way I addressed you as "seemingly senior experienced User, and admin at that", and so on - to call it "personal attack" is a bit far-fetched; I brought your "experience" to the table, now you are bringing my "history", which is more significant for the discussion I can't tell - it was intended to point on seriousness of this case and its broader context, which is, I (and probably some others) believe, contentious if not outright and completely against most basic project rules and guidelines (I am fanatical football aficionado too, but I never even heard of majority of those "national" teams included into aforementioned Cat). However, now I am compelled to respond, nevertheless. I know you can recite team after team, it doesn't mean that you should, because vast majority shouldn't be there at all to begin with, but also because they can't be related in significant way with a specific case - I checked entire Category:European national and official selection-teams not affiliated to FIFA my self, and although few are reasonably notable but mostly unverifiable and poorly or not sourced at all, it's filled with "well sourced" articles on "national", and of lately "official" (which is clever little WP:MASK for notability), teams of every region and locality imaginable, especially where separatist politics takes significant role, and similar feelings are mirrored on the project. But, that cherry-picking doesn't make any more comparable such cases of Tibet and Northern Cyprus with Srpska or Gozo for that matter. Great that you checked my history of "arguments" involving Srpska, only you should immediately point to those which you find problematic, and also significant for my arguments here. Yes, I proded those "national" teams like Gozo national team and such "notable" European football institutes, I wonder on what grounds they intend to keep those articles, and yes, someone removed prod, such as the step in a procedure. But, how you know that they are "pointy", anyway.--౪ Santa ౪99° 11:05, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 08:43, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I understand it's a terrible weather around Balkan, it's something like above 35C and windless with extreme humidity so it feels like above 40C, but editors don't need lessons in history from the perspective of one of their own, editors need sources and sources, especially if they are neutral and reliable, so that editors can check the articles (and I guess affiliated Cat's) for verifiability and establish notability. If all other sources are like one provided in editor's above post than we should have really easy task ahead.--౪ Santa ౪99° 14:12, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What are you talking about? Weather in Balkans? I live in Lisbon... I dont need to demonstrate the notability of what is one of the two organs forming the Bosnia and Herzegovina Football Association. Or, you claim football in Bosnia and Herzegovina is not notable by itself? FkpCascais (talk) 14:56, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 09:04, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per GiantSnowman. Republika Srpska currently doesn't have a FIFA-granted member status, thus this category is not relevant.--Darwinek (talk) 23:31, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Is it really necessary to relist discussions when and/or if they are at 3:1 for deletion (in this case Grutness, GiantSnowman, and me) ? Now with Darwinek expressed opinion (and vote) it's 4:1 for deletion - sometimes much closer and more vague and ambiguous cases go through with less uncertainty of outcome. --౪ Santa ౪99° 20:42, 20 August 2019 (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:Palmach fighters[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. MER-C 09:23, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Standard terminology for members of paramilitary group, matches supercat (Category:Haganah members). "Palmachniks" is widely used, but may be too idiosyncratic. Zerach (talk) 08:59, 16 August 2019 (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:Hutchison Port Holdings[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. MER-C 09:24, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: 2 articles, Port Holdings is a subsidiary of CK Hutchison Holdings Rathfelder (talk) 07:35, 16 August 2019 (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:Genting Hong Kong[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 August 24#Category:Genting Hong Kong

Category:Koukoulion[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: speedily merged to parents under C2F. – Fayenatic London 05:04, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: One file. No corresponding article. Rathfelder (talk) 06:41, 16 August 2019 (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:Aldehydic acids[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 August 24#Category:Aldehydic acids

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2019_August_16&oldid=915314347"