Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 February 7

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

February 7[edit]

Category:Paid parking[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. – Fayenatic London 22:09, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: We don't need a category for every place that charges a parking fee. Not a defining characteristic, and Wikipedia is not a travel guide. Toohool (talk) 21:30, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NONDEF. Paid parking is not a defining characteristic of these places. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:12, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment it is non-defining, but so is paying to drive on a stretch of road, but alas Category:Toll bridges remains. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:08, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – per nom. Kendall-K1 (talk) 03:38, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-defining and utterly unmaintainable, because far more places that have parking charge for it than don't. This is not a useful point of commonality between a sports facility in Las Vegas and a museum in London and a restaurant in Vancouver and a...why the hell is there a radio station in here? Bearcat (talk) 18:55, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Circus Circus Casino always comps my parking and I'm not a big gambler. Lots of places have free self park but charge for valet. As pricing policies changed at different locations, this category would require constant maintenance which is a pretty good sign it's not defining. RevelationDirect (talk) 07:47, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - clearly NN, and not necessarily permanent. Peterkingiron (talk) 08:08, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per RevelationDirect, Peterkingiron, BrownHairedGirl, WP:NONDEF and because the category would only be useful if Wikipedia were a travel guide, and Wikipedia is not a travel guide. Luis150902 (talk | contribs) 18:11, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It is not just that this is an insanely large category, it is not really defining. Some places go to it or away from it, and change very little else. Also some places have both paid and free parking areas. Also some places at times will remove all parking spaces under their direct control, either by getting rid of parking spaces, or by transferring the ownership of the parking. This is just not a notable characteristic.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:58, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete there is already category:Parking facilities and its subcats for things that are actually parking lots with articles. What I see in this cat are things that are not parking lots/car parks. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:46, 31 March 2017 (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:Deutsche Film-Aktiengesellschaft 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: keep and populate. – Fayenatic London 22:10, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The category is empty and it is redundant. It was the state film studio of the former East Germany and it made all films made in that country. There is also a Category:East German films, which currently has 372 pages linked to it. There is no point having both categories, and editors clearly prefer to use the East German films category. Felixkrater (talk) 20:12, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and populate, as part of Category:Films by studio. I see no reason which this studio's productions should be excluded from that category.
    That will of course leave few articles in the parent Category:East German films, which is not a problem. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:52, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, There is no point having a category that editors don't use. Removing articles from Category:East German films, would be a problem as at the moment it provides a comprehensive, alphabetical list of articles on East German films - that would be lost. Also, "East German films" is much more likely to be the term English speaking users will search on, not the clunky "Deutsche Film-Aktiengesellschaft".
    Interestingly, German wikipedia also simply lists articles on East German films under the category "DDR-Film" (i.e. the name of the country, not the studio) with 824 articles linked. This category page is linked via language links to the English Category:East German films and it is handy to be able to switch between the two pages, and compare the lists, which at the moment do the equivalent thing.Felixkrater (talk) 12:08, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and populate. Nothing is getting lost by that, it'll simply remain a subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:55, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete When films made in a nation are virtually all made under the auspices of one organization, this is a case of category overlap, and nothing useful is gained by following rules way too precisely.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:00, 20 March 2017 (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:Companies based in Loveland, Colorado[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: upmerge (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 06:57, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT —swpbT 15:27, 7 February 2017 (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:Barcelona Sporting Club[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). It would be helpful if e.g. User:Tassedethe or User:Oculi would start an RM on the article name first. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:08, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Opposed speedy. Main article of the categories is Barcelona S.C.. Armbrust The Homunculus 14:59, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Copy of speedy nom
  • Comment. I have no objection in principle, but as noted at speedy, the current page title is the result of an undiscussed WP:BOLD move a few months ago. Does anyone have any evidence either way as to whether "Barcelona S.C." is actually the appropriate title for the head article? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:44, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The move is not supported by the club website. BSC is used but not Barcelona S.C. Oculi (talk) 00:57, 8 February 2017 (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:Members of constitutional conventions[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). Marcocapelle (talk) 21:15, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Opposed speedy. Main article of the category is Constitutional convention (political meeting). It's also the subcategory of Category:Constitutional conventions (political meeting). Armbrust The Homunculus 14:53, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Copy of speedy nom
  • Oppose. As I noted at speedy, this does clearly fits C2B, but it's also horribly ugly. I also doubt that it is really necessary. Nobody can be a member of a Constitutional convention (political custom), so the current title is unambiguous. I don't think we need let the guideline force us into such superfluous verbosity. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:41, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename For ease of navigation, this category should match the main article. I would be sympathetic to BHG's aesthetic concerns if the longer category name were cluttering up the bottom of articles, but it's effectively a container category so this won't appear on any articles. RevelationDirect (talk) 07:53, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Disambiguators are only needed where there is ambiguity, which there cannot be in this case. We need Constitutional convention (political custom) to be declared as the main article, and a brief definition as to what is (and is not) one. Furthermore, brevity is a merit in category names to limit clutter, even if that is less of an issue for a container category such as this. I wonder whether the English Convention Parliaments of 1660 and 1688 should be within this, particularly the latter, as it produced the Bill of Right, 1688, which is the nearest thing Britain has to a written constitution. Peterkingiron (talk) 08:31, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This is a fairly straightforward case of C2D. Category names should follow article names. Pppery 14:39, 21 February 2017 (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.

Hisar (city)[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 all per nominator, with manual followup as needed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:08, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Copy of speedy nom
Nominator's rationale: The main article of the categories is Hisar (city). Armbrust The Homunculus 14:41, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom, unless someone would start an RM on the article before closing this discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:38, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hold your horses -- Hisar is not only a city, but a (larger) district and a (larger still) division. The district appears to be a secondary main article. Split or rename and purge -- The category currently includes a college in Hansi, which may not be part of the city (I do not know). This should not be closed until someone has checked that we have nothing relating to the rest of the district or division in it. Peterkingiron (talk) 08:41, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support and follow-up with manual review, splitting if necessary to parent categories for the district and division. – Fayenatic London 14:21, 22 February 2017 (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:Canada World Youth alumni[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; the reasons adduced for keeping the category have been refuted on policy grounds. I've made a list in Canada World Youth, excluding the user page User:Jbignell. – Fayenatic London 17:45, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT for a non-defining characteristic. The five articles filed here are literally the only alumni I can find by checking what links to Canada World Youth; if we have any more articles about CWY alumni than that, then either their articles aren't mentioning the fact at all or they are mentioning it but not linking to CWY's article in the process, both of which largely eliminate any realistic prospect of actually finding them to expand the category with. And serving in CWY is not a notability claim — it is not in and of itself the reason why any of these people have Wikipedia articles, so it is not a substantively defining point of commonality between two politicians, a writer, a musician and an actress. Note also the redirect from Category:CWY-JCM alumni, at which this was originally created before being moved and redirected to the current form — it will also need to be deleted if this goes. Bearcat (talk) 13:28, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- possibly after listifying. This is essentially a "year out" volunteering programme and will probably not be a notable characteristic in many cases. Peterkingiron (talk) 08:46, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- This is an international development project, that is university credited. With many of it's youth crediting their success to this program and it's cultural experience. For over 30 years, 20,000 youth had participated in CWY programs in over 60 countries around the world. I am sure there are other Canadian's on Wikipedia that are connected to this program. Slowly this list should grow when updated. JBignell (talk) 22:31, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We don't categorize people by every individual youth program they might have participated in before they accomplished something notable or encyclopedic — we don't, for instance, maintain categories for everyone who was ever in the Boy Scouts or the Girl Guides or Teach For America. We categorize people on defining characteristics, not every characteristic that they happen to have — the only people who could legitimately be categorized on the basis of their past participation in Canada World Youth would be the few to none for whom their participation in CWY was in and of itself the thing that got them a Wikipedia article. Bearcat (talk) 22:59, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Except we do have categories Girl Guides and Boy Scouts and list their membership, plus we add them to Wikipedia for no other reason other then they simple were members of the organization. Like Joan_Marsham and many others. JBignell (talk) 00:40, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Joan Marsham was chairman of the executive committee, that's quite something different than an ordinary member. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:08, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those categories don't exist to list people who were members of the Boy Scouts or the Girl Guides when they were kids; they exist to contain people who worked for the scouting and guiding organizations as adults (and who, nine times out of ten, that work is in and of itself the thing that got them a Wikipedia article.) That is, they don't exist to contain singers and writers and politicians who happen to have been scouts or guides for a couple of years in their teens; they exist to contain the likes of Lord and Lady Baden-Powell. Bearcat (talk) 18:29, 25 February 2017 (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 physicians by state or territory[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. – Fayenatic London 07:19, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per convention of Category:American physicians by state or territory. I have moved the territorial categories to Category:Physicians by insular area of the United States. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:31, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
PS This should have been a WP:C2C speedy, but I made a mistake with WP:TWINKLE, so it ended up here. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:22, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per actual content of the category, and I'm neutral whether it is desirable to keep states and territories apart or together. If anyone desires to have them merged back, it should better be discussed in a fresh nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:38, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The actual content includes people in such categories as Category:Physicians from Utah who were only physicians in the territory of Utah and not in the state of Utah. I am sure one could find other states this applies to.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:02, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. If the territories are meaningfully different, they should have their own categories. They do not, so for now, it makes sense to have this as just "by state". No prejudice against rediscussing if someone cares to create territory-specific categories. I personally don't think those would be useful for navigation. ~ Rob13Talk 12:19, 6 April 2017 (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:French rugby union players from Wallis and Futuna[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). Marcocapelle (talk) 07:17, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: tautology. Wallis and Futuna is part of Overseas France, so anyone from there is from part of France. The adjective "French" is superfluous. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:08, 7 February 2017 (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:Remote islands[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. The list of islands is already part of Atlas of Remote Islands. ~ Rob13Talk 12:16, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Convert Category:Remote islands to article Atlas of Remote Islands
Nominator's rationale: This category is related to a specific work and would be best explained in that context. Goustien (talk) 05:46, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is a clear case of WP:Overcategorization#Published_list, so it certainty does not belong as a category. Reproducing the full list as an article might amount to a WP:COPYVIO. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:15, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retain, but under a slightly changed name if converted to an article. "Atlas of Remote Islands" is identical with the source's title. I created the category and don't see it as over-categorization. My hope was that the category might lead people finding one island to look for others out of sheer, idle curiosity, and perhaps find the book as well. There is much to be said for creating delight among WP users. Note: WP policy does not have the same force as universal tenets of human morality endorsed by the majority of the world's population. It is, in cases such as this, at best a gentle suggestion by half a dozen nannies about what they consider constitutes a tidy nursery; their desiderata rightly meet with complete indifference by 99.9999% of all editors.Acad Ronin (talk) 12:46, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-defining. I'm not convinced that the book is notable enough to have a standalone article, either; its title is currently a redirect to the author. However, there is a Wikipedia book based on the list. A better way to navigate between these pages might be to add a link under "See also" or "External links" to it, thus:

{{Wikipedia books|A Companion Guide to Atlas of Remote Islands}} – Fayenatic London 14:38, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Listify per nom. The target redirects to the author who wrote a book, selecting 50 islands, a random number, some of which are truly oceanic, but others are not, being part of nearby countries. It is a selected list, not an objective one. Peterkingiron (talk) 08:55, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete someone's list of something or other, pure WP:OCAT, like "top 50 songs according to ..." Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:19, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename if kept. What defines these islands isn't the remoteness (that would be an WP:ARBITRARYCAT), but the fact that a particluar work refers to them as such. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:00, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Being referred to in this work is WP:NON-DEFINING of, for example, Norfolk Island. DexDor (talk) 07:23, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Listify as WP:NON-DEFINING. DexDor (talk) 07:23, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It is not defining to these islands that they were included in a specific atlas. A list based on the contents of the atlas would use one source for inclusion. A list should reflect a general consensus on the term, and one book is not enough to show such.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:04, 20 March 2017 (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:Archbishops of Ethiopia[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. BencherliteTalk 09:51, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Trial balloon. If you look at the sister categories of this one under Category:Archbishops by country, you will see some titled "of", others "in", and yet others like Fooish archbishops. These should be consistent and once we decide, we can speedy rename the remainder to match. Also, if someone can source whether the single occupant of the nominated category was ever an archbishop or even a bishop, rather than an abbot, that would be appreciated; otherwise, the article ought be removed from the cat and this cat - regardless of how we rename the lot - can be deleted as empty unless we can find other articles to put in it. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:33, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural comment. If you want this discussion to decide the fate of all those other categories, then they should be listed here and tagged. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:27, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's quite surprising to see Tekle Haymanot in this list while the article Tekle Haymanot doesn't mention that he was an archbishop. He seemed to be an abbot instead. The sources mentioned in the article don't mention he was an archbishop either. Tkele Haymanot has been on List of Abunas of Ethiopia since the beginning of that article in 2004, but I think he should be removed. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:56, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Naming Preference To answer your underlying question, I would prefer "of". While of, in and Fooian are usually the same, "in" would exclude archbishops that had to flee and Fooian would cause confusion if they were a different ethnicity than their surrounding area.RevelationDirect (talk) 07:59, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename - This is about one article. The Abuna was a Coptic appointment from Alexandria, which he did not hold. The article says he was Echege (no article). He was abbot of an important monastery, so that for the moment, I would propose Category:Ethiopian abbots, at least as an interim measure, until we can get that missing article written. This is certainly correct, if inadequate for his status. Peterkingiron (talk) 09:09, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would add that the issue is not "of" or "in": the article does not even claim that he was a bishop, let alone an archbishop. The whole category is thus Original Research. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:12, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There are two ways these people can be categorized. One is by nationality, that is if Archbishop X is an Ethiopian national but archbishop in South Africa. The other is by location of archdiocese, thus if Archbishop Y is a national of South Africa and Archbishop in Ethiopia. I think the former should be Category:Ethiopian archbishops and should include all people of Ethiopian nationality who held the title archbishop. There may be shared name issues here, but I will ignore them for the moment. The other should be Category:Archbishops in Ethiopia. Of/from are both too ambiguous in this situation to be useful.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:08, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, and split Category:Patriarchs of Ethiopia to this category for office-holders before 1959. See List of Abunas of Ethiopia, which shows that the official title of the Abuna has varied over time, being bishop, archbishop and then Patriarch. The parent Category:Abunas therefore has three sub-categories, which are apparently intended to avoid anachronisms. Currently, e.g. Salama II & III are incorrectly categorised as Patriarchs; they were Archbishops. – Fayenatic London 00:07, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to closer, the above has already been implemented. The discussion can simply be closed as keep. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:29, 7 May 2017 (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.

Thai (Premier) League football[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 by nominator. The RM discussion at Talk:Thai_League_T1#Requested_move_7_February_2017 closed with a move of the head article to Thai League T1. I will now do a speedy nomination of all the relevant categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:36, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming:
Nominator's rationale: to restore the titles which were stable before a set of out-of-process moves.
The head article was at Thai Premier League, and a move to Thai League was rejected Talk:Thai Premier League#Requested_move_21_February_2016. However, someone went ahead and did a cut-and-paste move, which I have now fixed, restoring the last agreed title Thai Premier League. I have left a note on the talk page[2] reminding editors to use the WP:RM process.
However, in the meantime, these categories were renamed to match the new article title. As far as I can see, these renamings were made directly by User:BTechTV, rather than through the WP:CFD/S process (see the category page histories: [3] [4], [5]).
A few weeks ago, I spotted a speedy proposal to rename the other subcats of Category:Thai League, and objected on grounds of ambiguity. I proposed a full CFD, and then found the cut-and-paste move.
This leaves us with Category:Thai League and 2 of its 5 subcats not matching the head article. It seems simplest to restore the status quo ante, and then review the category names if and when an RM discussion agrees a new title for the head article. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:18, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Copy of discussion at CFD/Speedy
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:1941 in the Moldavian Soviet Socialist Republic[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 and tag the categories in the alternative proposal. – Fayenatic London 15:49, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Essentially refers to the same geographical location in the same year. Moldova is the more widely used name for the region and conforms to category naming conventions. Alcherin (talk) 00:52, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Revisionism. Wasn't called Moldova then. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:46, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • And support alternative proposal below. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:07, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alternate proposal: Use "in the Moldavian Soviet Socialist Republic" instead of "in Moldova" for whole years that the area was under Soviet administration up until independence. Perhaps creating soft redirects would also help.
Also, what about categories for earlier years? Per the above reasoning, given that the area (excluding Transnistria) was under Romanian control, Category:1920s in Moldova and Category:1930s in Moldova‎ should be merged to Category:1920s in Romania and Category:1930s in Romania (and relevant subcats renamed/merged as necessary). I'm not entirely sure what to do with Category:1940s in Moldova (and Category:1940 in Moldova‎, Category:1944 in Moldova‎, and Category:1944 in Moldova‎ though - perhaps place it as a subcat in both Category:1940s in Romania and Category:1940s in the Soviet Union (and the same for the individual year articles). Alcherin (talk) 18:38, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - would support the opposite proposal of Alcherin - move all to Moldavian Soviet Socialist Republic, since Moldova state didn't exist at the time.GreyShark (dibra) 19:09, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alternative renames -- The history of Moldova is that it was part of Romania 1917-40. It was then conquered by USSR, becoming Moldovian SSR 1940-1991, and an independent republic on the breakup of USSR in 1991. This is all about the same territory. This should be reflected in the category names. The parent to all should be years in Moldova, but the annual categories for the Soviet period should be in the form Category:1986 in the Moldavian Soviet Socialist Republic‎‎ (perhaps shortened to Category:1986 in the Moldavian SSR, while those since 1991 should be in the present form. We also have a 1917 category, presumably for adding this previously partly Russian area to Romania: I am not sure what to do with that, as it was previously (perhaps partly) Bessarabia. This follows precedent of how we have dealt with similar situations, such as Rhodesia and Zaire. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:08, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support alternate proposal per above discussion. Also I sympathize with the idea of abbreviating Soviet Socialist Republic‎‎ to SSR but that should then be discussed for all SSRs. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:14, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly for Moldova - the purpose of the category system is not to give a history lesson but to help people find things (and even more so to help bots and templates find things). Therefore predictability and consistency have huge value in themselves - as long as the historical entity is recognisably the same geography as the modern one, we should use the modern name because that's what people will be using as the WP:COMMONNAME regardless of politics. Are people seriously saying that all the UK categories should be United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and UK of GB & Ireland before that? Le Deluge (talk) 13:24, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move all to MSSR, this is a name that makes it clear we are referring to the location based on its boundaries at the time. Moldova is too ambiguous as to weather it refers to the MSSR boundaries at the time, or the boundaries of the current nation (wheather the de facto or de jure current boundaries, which makes the whole thing even more of a mess.)John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:11, 20 March 2017 (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.

Gendered wheelchair 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: option A ~ Rob13Talk 12:07, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming:
OPTION A: use "men's"/"women's"
OPTION B: use "male"/"female"
21 subcats "men's"→"male" / "women's"→"female"
Nominator's rationale: These categories should be standardised on one format or the other. I prefer "women'"/"men's" (option A) because that is the format of the non-wheelchair Category:Men's basketball players/Category:Men's basketball players. I think that consistency helps both readers and editors.
The counter-argument (put to me by @Hawkeye7) is that domestic level wheelchair basketball is a mixed sport, whereas international games are segregated between men and women.
I am unpersuaded by this:
  1. I don't see that use of "men's"/"women's" is inapplicable to those who played in mixed competitions. They are all eligible for the gendered games.
  2. A significant number of the more important domestic games are segregated
  3. In any case, nearly of the articles in these categories are of players in international competitions (which are gender-segregated), because other players rarely meet WP:NSPORTS.
Background: I created nearly all of these categories, using the format "male/female". Then I remembered that the parent (non-wheelchair) Category:Men's basketball players by nationality etc used the "men's" format, so I C2E renamed my creation to current "mens" format, and proposed a WP:C2C speedy renaming of the pre-existing Category:Male wheelchair basketball players to Category:Men's wheelchair basketball players.
That speedy proposal was opposed by @Hawkeye7, and a discussion at my talk[6] page failed to reach agreement. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:21, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Categories have all been tagged[7]. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:06, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Copy of discussion at CFD/Speedy
  • If male and female wheelchair basketball players compete against each other (regularly), then better to used "male" and "female", as is conventional in tennis, where mixed doubles is often a featured competition. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 03:31, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Men's Predictability and consistency are more important for categories than 100% accuracy - not only does it make it much easier for humans to guess a category, it makes life much, much easier for the people who write bots and templates that in turn make all our lives easier. The battle for tennis has probably been lost but in general we should be very reluctant to create further exceptions to a rule. It's fine if a sport is 100% mixed but where there is reasonable debate that consistency should be a prime consideration. At the very least, there should always be a redirect from the standard form to allow bots and templates to do their thing.Le Deluge (talk) 13:13, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option A, basically all the people with articles are involved mainly in men's and women's specific games. What we are categorizing is the type of competion they are involved in (men's wheelchair basketball), so we are modifying the basketball with men's, not commenting on the given individuals sex.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:15, 20 March 2017 (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/2017_February_7&oldid=1090392304"