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.
Nominator's rationale: This category was created yesterday, but duplicates Category:General elections in the Republic of Ireland, in which it now sits. All of the articles that were in the original category have been moved into the new category except one. Simply put, I do not understand the point of the new category. Number57 22:15, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back per Marcocapelle. Spleodrach (talk) 14:43, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back obviously, unless some one can explain where the difference is. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:12, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back per Marcocapelle. Dimadick (talk) 20:21, 10 March 2016 (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.
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 10:07, 20 March 2016 (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.
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.
Nominator's rationale: All categories "Winter in…[(former) country]" and "Seasons in [(former) country]" serve only to hold "Winter sports in…" subcategories which would be better suited in Category:Sports by type and country. giso6150 (talk) 14:44, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, as the creator of these brand-new categories, and looking forward to prove their merits of existence. It is however already obvious that without this category tree, the seasonal aspect of winter sports wouldn't be appropriately connected to related seasonal topics. --PanchoS (talk) 14:56, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for combining these. Please provide any examples of what those other seasonal topics might be. I found no other existing "by country" topics under Category:Seasons. giso6150 (talk) 14:58, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@PanchoS: Why have you continued to add more categories exactly like the ones that are being discussed? Let's discuss this, please. giso6150 (talk) 19:02, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, see WP:FAITACCOMPLI; you can't establish a "standard" that others object to by ensure that it's everywhere as if this will make their objections go away. 73.71.224.145 (talk) 05:57, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Most Having Seasons in XXX which only contains Winter in XXX which in turn only contains Winter sports in XXX is muddling navigation not aiding it. The vast majority of these follow that model. (I'm actually neutral on Category:Winter in Canada and Category:Winter in the United States though since they have some other items.) RevelationDirect (talk) 02:23, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete most, per RevelationDirect (i.e. keep the two that have other content). The creator's objection about winter sports is invalid, because we already have Category:Winter, under which is Category:Winter sports. It it is not plausible that "without this category tree, the seasonal aspect of winter sports wouldn't be appropriately connected to related seasonal topics", since they'll all branch off of Category:Winter, exactly as we'd expect. — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 05:57, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete most (perhaps merge a few)-- Everything that I can see as articles will go under Category:Winter sports by country. I am not sure that separating out former countries like USSR, Czechoslovakia, and East and West Germany is useful. There is not enough content to need to such a split. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:19, 6 March 2016 (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.
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 per nomination. Although there has not been much participation here, given the overlap the contents do need to be merged because of the overlap. This close is without prejudice to further discussions on renaming or even a better split if such could be justified. – FayenaticLondon 20:55, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Accidental content fork with massive overlap. The techniques category is general; tactics are just a particular range of techniques. Yet the content of the tactics category and its subcats is not actually limited to "tactics", but includes all sorts of things including strategy (essentially the opposite of tactics), skills, formations, plays, captaincy, analytics, offense, defense, coverage, game-time management, play calling systems, blocking, kicks & punts, turns, moves, tackles, training, goals, bounces, fending, player order, grip, pitch/throw, pinch & switch hitters, rebound, passing, finishes, and various sports-pedagogical systems. All of these fit under "techniques" (where most of them are also already found), but few are, properly speaking, tactics. The "buried" and misnamed cat. should completely merge into the higher-level cat., including with the parent categorizations and sister project templates, etc. It's basically the same category; the merge-to target was created as a subcat of the main sports category (for the topics as such) and the merge-from one was created under the sports terminology category (for the topics' titles as jargon). — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 06:33, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This all seems reasonable to me offhand. Would there be no sports subcategory at Category:Tactics, which now has subcat Sports tactics? If so then I suggest that the Tactics category preface should link Category:Sports techniques in prose, or see also, or equivalent. --P64 (talk) 19:56, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Preserving the various parent category relationships is implicit in the proposal to merge the mutually redundant categories, not delete one of them. — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 02:55, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It looks as if the term "tactics" is primarily used in team sports, while the term "techniques" is primarily used in individual sports. Not sure if it really matters for categorization. If merged, I would propose to merge both of them to Category:Sports tactics and techniques and to parent it to Category:Techniques as well as Category:Tactics. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:57, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Works for me, though I don't see such a division; there are team and individual sports in both of the redundant categories. Rather, tactics are one form of technique, and the term is applied overbroadly to things that are not actually tactical in nature. Play calling systems, captaincy, sport pedagogy, etc., are not tactics. — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 02:49, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Techniques are short-term, tactics are mid-term, strategies are long-term. --NaBUru38 (talk) 17:41, 15 April 2016 (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 by alma mater: Emmanuel College, Cambridge[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. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:20, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Category creator here. Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: University of Cambridge "This category has the following 17 subcategories, out of 17 total." I added one to the existing 16. Perhaps a few of the 146 users in that category might take advantage of my new one. Cambridge people generally associate themselves more with their college than with the university. Narky Blert (talk) 10:34, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – unless there is a new requirement that wikipedians should be notable. Oculi (talk) 12:03, 3 March 2016 (UTC) (not notable)[reply]
Keep: Invalid rationale; content policies and guidelines do not apply to internal materials. (Even if the nom were amended to provide a different rationale, I would still oppose deletion unless it were a valid one I did not anticipate. Categories like this help editors find people with mutual interests and experience. We have lots and lots of these, for all sorts of non-trivial things, not just alma maters). — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 12:57, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, as a lot of the coverage of Oxbridge issues is dealt with at the college level, having Wikipedia alumni by Oxbridge college rather than by the university itself is helpful. I've got a lot of the Jesus College, Oxford, material to good or featured status and if someone wanted to do the same for another college it would help to know who had particular links to that college and so might have information/sources that others elsewhere in the university wouldn't.
Keep and don't merge per my comments above and per the failure to distinguish between Wikipedian user categories and mainspace categories in the first instance. BencherliteTalk 15:12, 9 March 2016 (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.
