< May 28 May 30 >

May 29

Category:Basketball clubs in Beijing

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, merging contents appropriately. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:39, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT; should delete and upmerge to Category:Basketball teams in China. There's a previous discussion on this club/team issue here, but this category was missed. ~ RobTalk 21:37, 29 May 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:Sports clubs

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:34, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WT:SPORTS has been notified of this discussion.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  09:28, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The bulk of the content in both categories is teams/clubs that are called "teams" in one sport but "clubs" in another, or called "teams" in one dialect but "clubs" in another within the same sport. A few items in the clubs category are clubs in a "society"/"association" sense and have nothing to do with teams or "clubs" in the team sense, and should be relocated to some other subcat of Category:Sports organisations. Just because they have "club" in their name does not mean they should go in a "clubs" category that really is the same thing as "teams".

Normally I would not care which of "clubs" or "teams" is used, because I don't like WP:ENGVAR fist-shaking matches, but I think that we should use "teams" in this case simply because it is not ambiguous with any other kind of organization. The "clubs" name should have a soft redir. at it. This merge should not affect the child category names that prefer "clubs" in certain sports or in certain countries instead of "teams" (any similar club/team content forks that have happened by accident can be merged later, but mostly the categories are either "teams" or "clubs", not both, so it's not a large problem).

If the odd case arises that a particular club (in the broad sense of a team and the corporate entity that surrounds it) actually fields multiple teams (in the narrow sense of a specific set of individuals playing together at the same time in the same uniform), and the club and the teams are all independently notable, that's a case-by-case basis matter, and can be handled by the "Foo team A" and "Foo team B" and overarching "Foo club" article all being in "Category:Foo club". Or whatever. I.e., don't over-think it.

In the interim, I've cross-categorized Category:Sports clubs and Category:Sports teams so people can find the team/club they're looking for, if they're lucky and persistent.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  09:25, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Or even just put them all in the immediate parent cat., as we're presently doing very often (see, e.g., the various B and C teams appearing at Category:Football clubs in Madrid). This is basically a routine WP:ENGVAR matter, a cleanup of accidental or at least incidental but pointless content-forking in the categoryspace.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  22:03, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If we are talking about what's generic, it's even more strange to want to merge clubs into teams. If anything, the merge should be the other way around, merging teams into clubs. Dammråtta (talk) 23:08, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ RobTalk 21:07, 29 May 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:Bridge-tunnels in the United States

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:  Relisted at 2016 JUN 15 CFD. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:54, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There are too few combined bridge-tunnels in the world to even start categorizing by country. The articles are in several U.S. categories, so merging up to North America for this very specific construction type is preferable. PanchoS (talk) 19:52, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Without a doubt, a more specific category will always be: more specific. However the point is that we want category schemes to be universal and consistent, while not creating WP:NARROWCATs. This per-country category might be borderline legitimate because of its four entries, but as the scheme would invite a set of tiny WP:NARROWCATs, categorizing by continent is both sufficiently precise and preferable. --PanchoS (talk) 21:39, 29 May 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:Economic repression

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:36, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, only three articles. In contrast to what one might expect, the concept of economic repression seems to refer to deliberately imperfect markets rather than to human rights violations, so that's why a merge to Category:Imperfect competition has been suggested. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:08, 29 May 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:Refugee aid organisations in the United Kingdom

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) 04:23, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: to fit in the charity heirarchy Rathfelder (talk) 07:10, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:COMMONNAME. Also, the existing scheme is Category:Refugee aid organizations. --PanchoS (talk) 08:36, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, considering it fits into the current category tree and has a slightly broader scope than non-profit organisations (though the current contents are possibly all registered charities). They're defined more by their purpose than their charitable status. Sionk (talk) 16:20, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK. Agree that these organisations are defined more by their purpose than their charitable status.Rathfelder (talk) 15:57, 1 June 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:Political works

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:  Relisted at 2016 JUN 15 CFD. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:56, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge, these are two very similar forks as in this earlier nomination about Historical works. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:48, 29 May 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:South Dakota Hall of Fame

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. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:26, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose Deleting Category:South Dakota Hall of Fame
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT and WP:OCAWARD (WP:NONDEFINING)
Currently, this category contains just 1 article, South Dakota Hall of Fame, and the only room for growth would be to start adding recipients. This organization has recognized over 700 people in a sparsely populated state so such an expansion would not be defining for the biography articles. (We already have a list of some notable recipients here though.) – RevelationDirect (talk) 02:58, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Notified Scanlan as the category creator and this discussion has been included in WikiProject South Dakota. – RevelationDirect (talk) 02:58, 29 May 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:Brentford F.C. Hall of Fame inductees

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:37, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose Deleting Category:Brentford F.C. Hall of Fame inductees
  • Propose Deleting Category:Coventry City F.C. Hall of Fame inductees
  • Propose Deleting Category:Millwall F.C. Hall of Fame inductees
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OCAWARD (WP:NONDEFINING)
Being a player on a professional football club is undoubtedly defining which is why the 125 people in these categories are already under the appropriate club player (or managers or staff) category. The question here is whether receiving a poorly defined club level award is also defining. The top several Google hits for these categories just point to these Wikipedia categories so these awards don't seem prominent. The creator of this category added passing references to these awards to most of the articles, which is fine, but it still doesn't seem defining. The contents of these categories are already listed here, here and here. - RevelationDirect (talk) 02:55, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Notified Beatpoet as the category creator and this discussion has been included in WikiProject United Kingdom. – RevelationDirect (talk) 02:55, 29 May 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.
More