Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 February 7

< February 6	February 8 >

February 7

Old sports teams

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. bibliomaniac 1 5 22:11, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Wikipedians interested in San Diego Chargers to Category:Wikipedians interested in the Los Angeles Chargers
Propose merging Category:Wikipedians interested in St. Louis Rams to Category:Wikipedians interested in the Los Angeles Rams
Propose merging Category:Wikipedians interested in Washington Redskins to Category:Wikipedians interested in the Washington Commanders
Propose merging Category:Wikipedians interested in Washington Football Team to Category:Wikipedians interested in the Washington Commanders

Nominattor's rationale: No good reason to have two (or in one case three) different categories for the same sports team. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:18, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Isn't it possible that there are Wikipedians interested in the San Diego Chargers but not the Los Angeles Chargers? Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 01:15, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Could be. {{User:UBX/NFL-Chargers retro 2}} seems as though it's not good to merge those. -- WOSlinker (talk) 09:15, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - In that case delete the old categories entirely, since reminisc[ing] of a sports team is not an appropriate basis for collaboration. Furthermore, these categories are all subcategories of their proposed merge targets, so the erroneous implication being raised here is already implied by the current layout (see WP:SUBCAT)* Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:08, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Pppery, please could you explain the problem with reminisc[ing] of a sports team? I don't generally edit sports-related pages, but I am trying to fix the grammar of these categories if they are kept. TSventon (talk) 15:18, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - It's not a grammar problem, it's that such a category does not ha[ve] the capacity to facilitate coordination and collaboration between users for the improvement of the encyclopedia, and thus is not appropriate per WP:USERCAT. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:35, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all To keep the project welcoming, we normally give wide latitude to editors to self identify in the interest of collective work on Wikipedia. This seems similar to saying "you can't show you are interested in a historical country, only its current successor." I note that the old sports teams do have their own categories and other content separate from the current incarnations, such as Category:Washington Redskins, which probably benefit from collective effort. UnitedStatesian (talk) 16:13, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Deleting userbox-populated categories (which all of these are) does not deny editors the right to self-identify, and I fail to see how it could possibly be seen as unwelcoming. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:19, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The cats certainly make it easier for editors with common interests to find each other. UnitedStatesian (talk) 03:35, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I left a notice of this discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sports. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:36, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge it's the same team but different names. The US shouldn't be treated differently to every other country, where we have one article/set of categories/set of templates for sports teams, regardless of how many times they've changed their names. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:41, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Two of the above have not only changed names, but also relocated cities, which presumably changed their fanbases significantly. UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:30, 12 March 2022 (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:Fictional soubenjutsuka

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 to Category:Fictional whip users. bibliomaniac 1 5 22:08, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Fictional soubenjutsuka (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: This category is an indiscriminate collection of fictional characters who have used whips. Furthermore, this term seems to indicate someone who practices a Japanese martial art. Most of these characters have never been associated with that term. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 17:33, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. SnowFire (talk) 19:40, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Category:Fictional flexible weapons practitioners, no real reason for the split. (Oinkers42) (talk) 20:27, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per (Oinkers42), without prejudice to deleting the target. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:18, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Fictional whip users. The current name is obscure, but the whip is a widely-used weapon in fiction. Dimadick (talk) 07:29, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this is based on a trivial aspect of the fictional characters in the category. If the category is not deleted, I would prefer renaming over merging because Category:Fictional flexible weapons practitioners is an utterly vague target. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:06, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per Dimadick. As long as some characters are categorised by their main weapon, using a whip is sufficiently defining IMHO and so is worth a separate category. – Fayenatic London 23:45, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Fictional whip fighters per the other weapon categories. Flexible weapons, while a decent umbrella container, is too broad and vague to categorize specific articles.Evojhcok (talk) 08:23, 14 March 2022 (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:Opinion polling for United kingdom votes in the 2020s

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 rename WP:C2E. – Fayenatic London 16:17, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Opinion polling for United kingdom votes in the 2020s to Category:Opinion polling for United Kingdom votes in the 2020s

Nominator's rationale: "K" in Kingdom needs to be capitalised. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 14:25, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agree Apologies, that was a typo Llewee (talk) 14:29, 7 February 2022 (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:Christ's Hospital staff

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 February 15#Category:Christ's Hospital staff

Category:Children of Christian VI of Denmark

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. – Fayenatic London 15:51, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Children of Christian VI of Denmark (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: SMALLCAT ★Trekker (talk) 00:25, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am not sure exactly what the criteria is but it is not like a category such as Category:Children of Edward II of England contains significantly more categories (should/could that category be added to this discussion?). The way I see it, both of these categories are part of a series of standard categories for issue of monarchs from a given country by monarch. The parent category CategoryChristian VI of Denmark may not contain a lot of pages at the moment but it is likely to do so in the future (a lot of existing pages have simply not been placed there yet) and it will therefore be usefull with some standard subcategories such as "Children of...", "Court of..." and "Cultural depictions of...", cf. similar categories for British monarchs etx.Ramblersen2 (talk) 12:44, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Other stuff existing is not really relevant, as far as I know no category for children of any person has been kept from deletion if it had less than 3 articles. I don't think "Children of Foo" is a very good standard category to have for monarchs since in different from a court which is bound to have dozens if not hundreds of individuals most people don't have that many children, and if a dead person (which most historical monarchs are) only had 2 or less children its not like they can ever have more, so there is little chance of expansion in these cases.★Trekker (talk) 21:53, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @Ramblersen2: I did some research and it appears that Christian VI did have a third known child, a little daughter who died in infancy, but unless someone can whip up a decent enough article about an infant (like Archduchess Maria Carolina of Austria (born 1740) or Archduchess Maria Carolina of Austria (stillborn 1748)) very quick I don't think it helps keep this category.★Trekker (talk) 11:42, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:18, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:58, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, small cat and unlikely to grow.--Mvqr (talk) 14:15, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Repurpose -- Category:Royal family of Denmark in 18th century might make a viable merge target for this and similar categories. Category:House of Oldenburg is a mess since it is dealing with a number of different polities. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:15, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Peterkingiron: I made an attempt to tidy Category:House of Oldenburg so you might reconsider your suggestion. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:13, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with Ramblersen2. Dimadick (talk) 07:31, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, we have been consistently deleting Children of categories in the past that were equally small, see e.g. Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_March_1. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:42, 15 February 2022 (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.