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 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: Per my comments at
Talk:Nazi_ghettos#Requested_move_14_May_2023, at minimum, we should be consistent add the word 'Jewish' here (parent cat:
Category:Jewish ghettos in Europe, chid cats: :Category:Jewish ghettos in Fooland...). On a separate note, two naming issues worth considering is whether we should change the phrase "Jewish ghetto" to "ghetto for Jews" and whether we should use adjective Nazi, German-occupied, or Nazi German in the name (the categories use Nazi, the articles use German-occupied). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here 03:04, 14 May 2023 (UTC)reply
That might imply that the ghettos were not abolished before or with the fall of Nazi Germany. The proposed name by nom is clearer in this respect.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 18:28, 16 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Comment: The conversation at
Talk:Nazi_ghettos#Requested_move_14_May_2023 seems to be ongoing and is split on this very issue. Would it not be better to wait until it is concluded, rather than risking muddying the waters by having it go one way there and another way here?
Furius (
talk) 21:04, 16 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Pending RM. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CLYDETALK TO ME/
STUFF DONE (please
mention me on reply) 21:22, 23 May 2023 (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:Fordsons F.C. players
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: A name used by Cork F.C. for several years.
Fordsons F.C. has no independent notability under that name, the link redirects to
Cork F.C..
Geregen2 (
talk) 15:57, 23 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Merge same team with different names at different times. We always have just one category for a team in this scenario.
Joseph2302 (
talk) 08:16, 24 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Note: This discussion has been included in
WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions.
GiantSnowman 20:38, 26 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Merge - we have one parent article, and therefore should have one player category, regardless of any name change/merge.
GiantSnowman 20:43, 26 May 2023 (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:Pailan Arrows templates
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: Pailan Arrows is an old name of the team currently known as Indian Arrows.
Pailan Arrows is a redirect to
Indian Arrows, no independent notability under the old name.
Geregen2 (
talk) 15:54, 23 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Support same team with different names at different times. We always have just one category for a team in this scenario.
Joseph2302 (
talk) 11:02, 26 May 2023 (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:BÍ/Bolungarvík players
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: BÍ/Bolungarvík was merged into
Vestri (football club) in 2016.
BÍ/Bolungarvík is a redirect to the new name - no independent notability under the old name.
Geregen2 (
talk) 15:50, 23 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Oppose All of the players in the category where in BÍ/Bolungarvík prior to 2015 (most of them prior to 2014). BÍ/Bolungarvík merged into Vestri just prior to the 2016 season, so none of the players where Vestri players.--
Snævar (
talk) 11:00, 26 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Support when sports clubs merged together, the standard is to have one category for all players. The fact that they played for the team under the former/unmerged name doesn't mean we should have separate categories for each club name iteration.
Joseph2302 (
talk) 11:02, 26 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Note: This discussion has been included in
WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions.
GiantSnowman 20:38, 26 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Merge - we have one parent article, and therefore should have one player category, regardless of any name change/merge.
GiantSnowman 20:43, 26 May 2023 (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.
Tsunamis (2)
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: merge as there is not enough content per decade in the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries and not enough content per year in the 20th century. It is not necessary to merge to natural disasters since all are either earthquakes or not caused by natural events (i.e. dam failures). –
Aidan721 (
talk) 14:49, 23 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Merge for Now with no objection to recreating if any grow to 5+ articles. -
RevelationDirect (
talk) 18:47, 28 May 2023 (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.
As the creator the category it was deliberately done to be technically correct and political correct. While single and double handed is a commonly used term it will not be going forwards. It comes across as discrimitive and technically incorrect as the boat actually has two and fours hand if the person has no physical disabilities. I accept the term hands has a nautical meaning but this is lost in the general sporting context it not single handed tennis etc. World Sailing have started to used the politically correct term with the term "mixed doubles" for example.
Yachty4000 (
User talk:Yachty4000) 23:24, 2 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Single/double-handed terms are still in use,
World Sailing used the term in December 2022
here. The category would need to be moved to plural and would follow category tree better if switched to competitions.
Kaffet i halsen (
talk) 11:17, 3 May 2023 (UTC)reply
They should do but its common terminology. Can't see tennis, badminton, canoeing or any other sport using it. The term double is ok but handed isn't. Yachty4000
Yachty4000 (
talk) 17:07, 6 May 2023 (UTC)reply
If the inclusion of "crew" is considered more clear, let's rename it that way (and do the same for Single-handed).
Kaffet i halsen (
talk) 11:01, 31 May 2023 (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:Language policy by country
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.
Procedural comment, the nominated subcategories should still be tagged.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 19:13, 7 April 2023 (UTC)reply
I'll do that depending on how you answer my questions above, because I'm not sure what is the best move here. There are many options to resolve this issue.
Nederlandse Leeuw (
talk) 19:27, 7 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Done Thanks for your feedback, it helped me refine the nomination.
Nederlandse Leeuw (
talk) 20:36, 7 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Oppose Belgium, China, Pakistan as 'small cat' doesn't apply (articles in subcats belong to the parent category). Support the others.
Oculi (
talk) 17:34, 8 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Support — especially the 1 subcategory wonders, and the barely there Finland. Pushing vaguely related articles into a category is not the same as a substantial and encyclopedic head article. Really need to make
WP:SMALLCAT formally 10, instead of informally 5. William Allen Simpson (
talk) 06:26, 15 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 16:35, 2 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Support Most China, Pakistan and Finland don't seem small as of now. -
RevelationDirect (
talk) 02:27, 7 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: No clear consensus on Finland or the ones with their own subcategories. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –
LaundryPizza03 (
dc̄) 03:33, 23 May 2023 (UTC)reply
As nom: Withdrawn Belgium, China, Finland and Pakistan The objections against upmerging these cats seem to be valid. The rest can go ahead.
Nederlandse Leeuw (
talk) 23:33, 23 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Support as adjusted. –
Aidan721 (
talk) 14:18, 26 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Merge for Now based on amendments to original nom. No objection to recreating if any grow to 5+ articles. -
RevelationDirect (
talk) 18:51, 28 May 2023 (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.
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: Per my comments at
Talk:Nazi_ghettos#Requested_move_14_May_2023, at minimum, we should be consistent add the word 'Jewish' here (parent cat:
Category:Jewish ghettos in Europe, chid cats: :Category:Jewish ghettos in Fooland...). On a separate note, two naming issues worth considering is whether we should change the phrase "Jewish ghetto" to "ghetto for Jews" and whether we should use adjective Nazi, German-occupied, or Nazi German in the name (the categories use Nazi, the articles use German-occupied). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here 03:04, 14 May 2023 (UTC)reply
That might imply that the ghettos were not abolished before or with the fall of Nazi Germany. The proposed name by nom is clearer in this respect.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 18:28, 16 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Comment: The conversation at
Talk:Nazi_ghettos#Requested_move_14_May_2023 seems to be ongoing and is split on this very issue. Would it not be better to wait until it is concluded, rather than risking muddying the waters by having it go one way there and another way here?
Furius (
talk) 21:04, 16 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Pending RM. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CLYDETALK TO ME/
STUFF DONE (please
mention me on reply) 21:22, 23 May 2023 (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:Fordsons F.C. players
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: A name used by Cork F.C. for several years.
Fordsons F.C. has no independent notability under that name, the link redirects to
Cork F.C..
Geregen2 (
talk) 15:57, 23 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Merge same team with different names at different times. We always have just one category for a team in this scenario.
Joseph2302 (
talk) 08:16, 24 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Note: This discussion has been included in
WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions.
GiantSnowman 20:38, 26 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Merge - we have one parent article, and therefore should have one player category, regardless of any name change/merge.
GiantSnowman 20:43, 26 May 2023 (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:Pailan Arrows templates
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: Pailan Arrows is an old name of the team currently known as Indian Arrows.
Pailan Arrows is a redirect to
Indian Arrows, no independent notability under the old name.
Geregen2 (
talk) 15:54, 23 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Support same team with different names at different times. We always have just one category for a team in this scenario.
Joseph2302 (
talk) 11:02, 26 May 2023 (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:BÍ/Bolungarvík players
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: BÍ/Bolungarvík was merged into
Vestri (football club) in 2016.
BÍ/Bolungarvík is a redirect to the new name - no independent notability under the old name.
Geregen2 (
talk) 15:50, 23 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Oppose All of the players in the category where in BÍ/Bolungarvík prior to 2015 (most of them prior to 2014). BÍ/Bolungarvík merged into Vestri just prior to the 2016 season, so none of the players where Vestri players.--
Snævar (
talk) 11:00, 26 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Support when sports clubs merged together, the standard is to have one category for all players. The fact that they played for the team under the former/unmerged name doesn't mean we should have separate categories for each club name iteration.
Joseph2302 (
talk) 11:02, 26 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Note: This discussion has been included in
WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions.
GiantSnowman 20:38, 26 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Merge - we have one parent article, and therefore should have one player category, regardless of any name change/merge.
GiantSnowman 20:43, 26 May 2023 (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.
Tsunamis (2)
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: merge as there is not enough content per decade in the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries and not enough content per year in the 20th century. It is not necessary to merge to natural disasters since all are either earthquakes or not caused by natural events (i.e. dam failures). –
Aidan721 (
talk) 14:49, 23 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Merge for Now with no objection to recreating if any grow to 5+ articles. -
RevelationDirect (
talk) 18:47, 28 May 2023 (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.
As the creator the category it was deliberately done to be technically correct and political correct. While single and double handed is a commonly used term it will not be going forwards. It comes across as discrimitive and technically incorrect as the boat actually has two and fours hand if the person has no physical disabilities. I accept the term hands has a nautical meaning but this is lost in the general sporting context it not single handed tennis etc. World Sailing have started to used the politically correct term with the term "mixed doubles" for example.
Yachty4000 (
User talk:Yachty4000) 23:24, 2 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Single/double-handed terms are still in use,
World Sailing used the term in December 2022
here. The category would need to be moved to plural and would follow category tree better if switched to competitions.
Kaffet i halsen (
talk) 11:17, 3 May 2023 (UTC)reply
They should do but its common terminology. Can't see tennis, badminton, canoeing or any other sport using it. The term double is ok but handed isn't. Yachty4000
Yachty4000 (
talk) 17:07, 6 May 2023 (UTC)reply
If the inclusion of "crew" is considered more clear, let's rename it that way (and do the same for Single-handed).
Kaffet i halsen (
talk) 11:01, 31 May 2023 (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:Language policy by country
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.
Procedural comment, the nominated subcategories should still be tagged.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 19:13, 7 April 2023 (UTC)reply
I'll do that depending on how you answer my questions above, because I'm not sure what is the best move here. There are many options to resolve this issue.
Nederlandse Leeuw (
talk) 19:27, 7 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Done Thanks for your feedback, it helped me refine the nomination.
Nederlandse Leeuw (
talk) 20:36, 7 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Oppose Belgium, China, Pakistan as 'small cat' doesn't apply (articles in subcats belong to the parent category). Support the others.
Oculi (
talk) 17:34, 8 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Support — especially the 1 subcategory wonders, and the barely there Finland. Pushing vaguely related articles into a category is not the same as a substantial and encyclopedic head article. Really need to make
WP:SMALLCAT formally 10, instead of informally 5. William Allen Simpson (
talk) 06:26, 15 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 16:35, 2 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Support Most China, Pakistan and Finland don't seem small as of now. -
RevelationDirect (
talk) 02:27, 7 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: No clear consensus on Finland or the ones with their own subcategories. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –
LaundryPizza03 (
dc̄) 03:33, 23 May 2023 (UTC)reply
As nom: Withdrawn Belgium, China, Finland and Pakistan The objections against upmerging these cats seem to be valid. The rest can go ahead.
Nederlandse Leeuw (
talk) 23:33, 23 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Support as adjusted. –
Aidan721 (
talk) 14:18, 26 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Merge for Now based on amendments to original nom. No objection to recreating if any grow to 5+ articles. -
RevelationDirect (
talk) 18:51, 28 May 2023 (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.