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: Not much of a distinction between the two categories. The categories would benefit from a merger as they are very closely related.
WP:OVERLAPCAT. –
Aidan721 (
talk) 17:45, 26 May 2022 (UTC)reply
@
Aidan721: correct me if I am wrong but it looks like these are tournament rosters rather than team rosters. Or is this distinction not relevant?
Marcocapelle (
talk) 05:46, 3 June 2022 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Extraordinary Writ (
talk) 23:52, 15 June 2022 (UTC)reply
@
Aidan721: see above, apparently my first ping did not reach you.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 04:18, 16 June 2022 (UTC)reply
Oops sorry, must've missed it. I just feel as though the distinction between tournament rosters and team rosters is not very relevant, and there is neither category is very large to necessitate a separate category. –
Aidan721 (
talk) 17:08, 16 June 2022 (UTC)reply
Oppose Merge - It seems that the subcats (and sub-subcats) of
Category:Sports squads seems to vary between the use of "roster" and "squad". And I think it's clearer to keep the teams assembled for a particular tournament, separate from teams assembled for league play. - jc37 10:42, 30 July 2022 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 18:56, 30 July 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.
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: rename aligning the category names per precedent in
this discussion. Currently some categories use "academics", others use "faculty". "Academic personnel" seems a proper new alternative.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 11:30, 30 July 2022 (UTC)reply
Oppose- I must say that I object to a cfd closure which adopts a term found nowhere else in the tree and not mentioned in the nomination. The nomination should have been relisted with the new proposal which I would have opposed.
Oculi (
talk) 12:32, 30 July 2022 (UTC)reply
I'll happily treat this as a request for clarification.
In the
discussion, the use of "faculty" was opposed overall. And not only was
Academic personnel proposed and supported in the discussion, but we should follow the main article name (see also
WP:C2D), unless there is an over-riding consensus - which in this case, there clearly was not.
I hope this helps. - jc37 00:26, 31 July 2022 (UTC)reply
If researchers at a university are not included in the term "faculty" then that is all the more reason to move away from the term "faculty".
Marcocapelle (
talk) 04:56, 1 August 2022 (UTC)reply
This is important. The issue of whether a person is included as a faculty member is very rarely mentioned in an article and we do not have a high level category to put them in.
Rathfelder (
talk) 08:45, 2 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Support, and discussion on the rest of the countries can follow after this one is closed. The main article is at
academic personnel because the meaning of "faculty" depends on one's geography, and the categories should follow the same logic.
UnitedStatesian (
talk) 20:33, 31 July 2022 (UTC)reply
Support -- Finland (being in Europe) is more likely to use British than American nomenclature. American analogies are unhelpful.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 18:35, 7 August 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.
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: Not much of a distinction between the two categories. The categories would benefit from a merger as they are very closely related.
WP:OVERLAPCAT. –
Aidan721 (
talk) 17:45, 26 May 2022 (UTC)reply
@
Aidan721: correct me if I am wrong but it looks like these are tournament rosters rather than team rosters. Or is this distinction not relevant?
Marcocapelle (
talk) 05:46, 3 June 2022 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Extraordinary Writ (
talk) 23:52, 15 June 2022 (UTC)reply
@
Aidan721: see above, apparently my first ping did not reach you.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 04:18, 16 June 2022 (UTC)reply
Oops sorry, must've missed it. I just feel as though the distinction between tournament rosters and team rosters is not very relevant, and there is neither category is very large to necessitate a separate category. –
Aidan721 (
talk) 17:08, 16 June 2022 (UTC)reply
Oppose Merge - It seems that the subcats (and sub-subcats) of
Category:Sports squads seems to vary between the use of "roster" and "squad". And I think it's clearer to keep the teams assembled for a particular tournament, separate from teams assembled for league play. - jc37 10:42, 30 July 2022 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 18:56, 30 July 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.
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: rename aligning the category names per precedent in
this discussion. Currently some categories use "academics", others use "faculty". "Academic personnel" seems a proper new alternative.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 11:30, 30 July 2022 (UTC)reply
Oppose- I must say that I object to a cfd closure which adopts a term found nowhere else in the tree and not mentioned in the nomination. The nomination should have been relisted with the new proposal which I would have opposed.
Oculi (
talk) 12:32, 30 July 2022 (UTC)reply
I'll happily treat this as a request for clarification.
In the
discussion, the use of "faculty" was opposed overall. And not only was
Academic personnel proposed and supported in the discussion, but we should follow the main article name (see also
WP:C2D), unless there is an over-riding consensus - which in this case, there clearly was not.
I hope this helps. - jc37 00:26, 31 July 2022 (UTC)reply
If researchers at a university are not included in the term "faculty" then that is all the more reason to move away from the term "faculty".
Marcocapelle (
talk) 04:56, 1 August 2022 (UTC)reply
This is important. The issue of whether a person is included as a faculty member is very rarely mentioned in an article and we do not have a high level category to put them in.
Rathfelder (
talk) 08:45, 2 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Support, and discussion on the rest of the countries can follow after this one is closed. The main article is at
academic personnel because the meaning of "faculty" depends on one's geography, and the categories should follow the same logic.
UnitedStatesian (
talk) 20:33, 31 July 2022 (UTC)reply
Support -- Finland (being in Europe) is more likely to use British than American nomenclature. American analogies are unhelpful.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 18:35, 7 August 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.