From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 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. ~ Rob Talk 21:37, 29 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Support per nom. -- PanchoS ( talk) 22:19, 29 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose strongly, a club is bigger than a team. If anything, team categories should be merged into club categories, not the other way around. Dammråtta ( talk) 23:11, 5 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Support per nom. The need for a rename of the target category shouldn't block an obvious merge. Marcocapelle ( talk) 04:17, 6 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: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

  • Oppose any general merger. Professional team sport in UK is invariably organised by clubs. We only hear of the first team, but there is commonly also a second or reserves team. Playing in them is generally NN, so that we may not get many articles, but they are not the same thing. Some selective merging may be appropriate, but probably teams to clubs, rather than as nom. Note that Gaelic Athletics Association organises teams in several sports through the same club, so that teams are needed here. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:33, 28 February 2016 (UTC) reply
    • It's not general, it's specific. I already addressed these matters. This CfM is about the generic, high-level parent categories listed above, which are redundant (and there may be some second-order ones that are redundant, too, where we've POVFORKed "Category:Sport teams" and "Category:Sport clubs". It's exactly like having a separate category for "pediatric medicine" and "paediatric medicine". We do not fork categories on the basis of colloquial preference for a particular synonym. If any sport or region fairly consistently uses "club", as association football does internationally, and the UK does across many sports, the sport- or region-specific categories for it should probably be named with "clubs". The exact same alternates-team situation pointed out by Peterkingiron exists in various sports that do not use "club", so the objection raised isn't salient for this proposal. For any case where there are multiple "teams" in the same "club", and they're notable enough to generate multiple articles, the club or team-as-organization can simply have its own subcat for them all:
      • Category: Underwater billiards teams [or clubs, whatever] in Mexico
        • Category: Morélia Club Billar Submarina
          • Morélia Club Billar Submarina
          • Morélia Club Billar Submarina B
          • Morélia Club Billar Submarina C
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
  • Support. Present system makes it very hard to find what you are looking for. Rathfelder ( talk) 21:41, 24 March 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Support for now. One would expect that it should be fairly easy to distinguish between teams and clubs, how difficult can this be? But I see that this in practice it has become a mess, so let's merge first. I wouldn't mind though if anyone in the future would like to make a good split between clubs and teams. Marcocapelle ( talk) 11:22, 25 March 2016 (UTC) reply
  • If they are to be merged, a better title would be Category:Sports clubs and teams. Tim! ( talk) 16:16, 17 April 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose. If some countries & sports were using one word and others the other word without much overlap, I would have supported this. However, other-language Wikipedias have similar category hierarchies; see Sports clubs and Sports teams at Wikidata – if we merged on English wikipedia, which set would we link to? Moreover, some sports use both, e.g. there are extensive hierarchies for Category:Association football clubs and Category:Association football teams. IMHO if there is as strong an overlap in meaning as the nominator states, then the duplication of hierarchies might be better tackled by trying to merge cases where both are used (e.g. association football); if that fails to gain consensus, then just tidy and cross-link the existing structures. There has certainly been insufficient participation here to embark on wholesale merging. – Fayenatic L ondon 09:30, 25 April 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose strongly, a club may have more than one team. A national team is not a club. Dammråtta ( talk) 18:20, 26 April 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Rob Talk 21:07, 29 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose As others noted, clubs may have several teams, some teams are affiliated to but not run by a club, and other teams aren't even affiliated to any club.
    If it's the case that many articles are categorized as both, this is because the respective team is covered in the club's article, sometimes even constituting the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC within that club's title. Still we already have separate articles for quite some teams, and with expanding coverage, there will be more and more of them. Thus, any kind of merger (back or forth) will considerably weaken our category scheme. Neither is circular cross-categorizing a solution here – crosslinking using {{ cat see also}} is. -- PanchoS ( talk) 22:13, 29 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Comment, the confusion is very visible in the discussion immediately above this one. In the wikipedia articles of the Chinese basketball clubs the word "team" is used more often than "club" and so the clubs are all together categorized as teams. Marcocapelle ( talk) 04:13, 6 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: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
  • Support, they might even be merged to a global level. Not all sets within the buildings and constructions tree are 'big' enough to categorize at country level, that's just unavoidable when getting very specific about the type of construction. Marcocapelle ( talk) 04:22, 6 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: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
  • Tend to support the latter (military), tend to oppose the former (politics). Political art is a genre, so political works are works of that genre. Political music, posters or slogans aren't about politics from an outside perspective – they're usually communicating a particular political perspective or agenda. Political fiction mostly isn't about politics either, a (real or fictive) political setting may just be used as a canvas for the actual narrative. -- PanchoS ( talk) 08:31, 29 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • UpMerge Category:Political works to Category:Political art. Oppose the military one. These both seem to be by-type cats, not necessarily only about-type cats. I think we should be careful about how to integrate these trees with the rest of the "works" sets of trees. I'm not exactly sold yet on whether we even should. - jc37 22:30, 4 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: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
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
  • Delete as small in its current shape, and non-defining if expanded. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 09:35, 30 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete one article categories are very rarely useful, even more so one the one article has the name of the category. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 20:27, 5 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: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
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.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_May_29&oldid=1074817152"