March 19
Category:Jockeys by populated place 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: keep. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkl talk 10:44, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. Only one category in here, which isn't helpful for navigation. Mason ( talk) 00:19, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
- There were going to be several more, but I managed to piss off a few editors who didn't see why Foo sportspeople should be divided by US city, despite the fact that they are divided like that on Wikipedia for every other large country, so I stopped. I could easily add a few more to make the category worthwhile, but I'm not sure it's worth the hassle.
Grutness...
wha? 02:18, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
- It's now got five subcats, though one of them's a little skinny.
Grutness...
wha? 03:29, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
- I can understand why editors object to sportspeople by city. They usually play professional sports in different places than they were raised in and so the place where they grew up is largely trivial. Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:17, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
- It's now got five subcats, though one of them's a little skinny.
Grutness...
wha? 03:29, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose. If it was inadequate when nominated, it's adequate now. Also, it's not just sportspeople who conduct their careers away from where they were born or grew up. Last, a person's origin may be trivial to some readers but I suspect it's considered a key trait to others. It depends on how much a reader values "sense of place" or is interested in what a particular community contributes to the world. Stefen Towers among the rest! Gab • Gruntwerk 00:41, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 21:35, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
- Keep dividing by city is the accepted standard for similarly large categories.-- User:Namiba 11:08, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
- 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.
Minor league coaches
Relisted, see
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 March 27#Minor league coaches
English-language Bahamian films
Relisted, see
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 March 27#English-language Bahamian films
Category:Nazis in the United States
Relisted, see
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 March 27#Category:Nazis in the United States
Category:Professional Women's Hockey Players Association 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.
- The result of the discussion was: keep. This discussion has a bit of a history; see this discussion at WT:HOCKEY for a bit more context. With that out of the way, this is actually a fairly simple close. The rationale for deletion/recategorization is that membership in an advocacy group is not a defining characteristic, which is undoubtedly true. However, as keep !voters pointed out, this was not merely an advocacy group. It was an actual league which played actual games (though in fairness to those who supported deletion, I will echo the fact that at the time it was not exactly clear from reading Professional Women's Hockey Players Association that it was more than an advocacy group). Playing in the league is defining, and therefore this is a valid category. (non-admin closure) House Blaster ( talk · he/him) 03:06, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: A non-defining characteristic. User:Namiba 02:28, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
- Keep, given that all players who played for a certain team/in a certain league are categorized as such, PWHPA participants in the pre-PWHL era ought to be categorized in the same way. Wheatzilopochtli ( talk) 02:57, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
- Delete, mere membership of an advocacy organization is not a defining characteristic. Activists and chairs may be categorized as such though.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 06:17, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nom and Marco. Omnis Scientia ( talk) 18:33, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
- It is not just an advocacy organization. It was also a league that the players played in. Wheatzilopochtli ( talk) 23:26, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
- Recategorize players, then delete. Membership in an association is not defining. Players should go into their respective leagues/teams if not already categorized:
Category:Canadian Women's Hockey League players,
Category:Premier Hockey Federation players,
Category:Professional Women's Hockey League (player subcat needed).
Flibirigit (
talk) 12:31, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
- Note, I've created Category:Professional Women's Hockey League players and the team subcategories.-- User:Namiba 14:31, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
- It is not just an association, it was a league those players played in. Wheatzilopochtli ( talk) 23:27, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Per discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 16:53, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
-
Marcocapelle,
Flibirigit,
Wheatzilopochtli,
Isaacl,
Oknazevad,
Fayenatic london,
Namiba,
Omnis Scientia, courtesy ping. I've reopened the discussion. —
Qwerfjkl
talk 16:56, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
- As per
my comments, changes need to made to the parent article at
Professional Women's Hockey Players Association, to support arguments that this is a league and not an advocacy group.
Flibirigit (
talk) 17:14, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
- While not clear from the introduction, this information can be found later in the article. Wheatzilopochtli ( talk) 17:25, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
- As per
my comments, changes need to made to the parent article at
Professional Women's Hockey Players Association, to support arguments that this is a league and not an advocacy group.
Flibirigit (
talk) 17:14, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose for two reasons. First, the organization operated as a league, with consistent teams and a named championship in all but its first season. Its seasons
have their own articles and
appear in its players' stats tables. Second, members of the PWHPA participated in a boycott of the NWHL/PHF and other women's leagues, which directly led to the dissolution of the PHF and the creation of the PWHL, so even without respect to the fact that it operated as a league, PWHPA participation ought to be considered a defining characteristic. Additionally, subcategories should be added for the teams, as from the second season onwards the teams remained consistent within each season.
Wheatzilopochtli (
talk) 17:21, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
- Please support the argument with reliable sources, and update the parent article.
Flibirigit (
talk) 17:24, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
- All of these sources are cited in the parent article. I'm not sure what is unclear.
- On the organization operating as a league:
- On the importance of the PWHPA to women's hockey;
- https://www.nbcsportsbayarea.com/nhl/pwhpa-stars-not-just-playing-for-bragging-rights-vs-sharks-alumni/1338631/
- https://theathletic.com/4245465/2023/02/23/pwhpa-union-negotiating-cba/
- https://www.thestar.com/sports/hockey/pwhpa-union-and-contract-talks-reportedly-move-new-women-s-hockey-league-closer-to-reality/article_51b3a1f4-7e0e-544e-ae53-6b459c7e7a21.html
- https://www.espn.com/nhl/story/_/id/28846979/what-comes-next-professional-women-hockey-saga
- Wheatzilopochtli ( talk) 17:31, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
- It is unclear because the introduction of the parent article does not mention the word league nor seasons. Please update the article.
Flibirigit (
talk) 17:33, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
- I have updated the article introduction to clarify that the dream gap tours functioned as seasons of a league. My other point, that membership is a defining characteristic regardless of the fact that it operated as a league, was already supported in the article introduction.
- Wheatzilopochtli ( talk) 17:38, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
- The edit was somewhat helpful, but the information is buried near the bottom of the introduction. I also struggle to understand the opening sentence of the article: "nonprofit organization dedicated to advocating". Such a wording defines it more as a lobbying group, and is not intuitive that it operated as a league. Please see
WP:BETTER/GRAF1 for suggestion on wording the lead sentence(s). I do not expect this be GA-class, but more clarity would help the casual reader. Best wishes.
Flibirigit (
talk) 18:04, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
- It was primarily an advocacy group, but it ran a de-facto league, the dream gap tours. The argument I am making is that the organization and these players' participation therein was central to an important era in women's hockey, and that the dream gap tours should be categorized as a league. We could rename the category to something like "PWHPA Dream Gap Tour players" if you'd prefer.
Wheatzilopochtli (
talk) 18:27, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
- I understand your argument, but the introduction is not clear to the casual reader who is likely to comment at CFD. I suggest placing the mention of a league and the dream gap closer to the beginning of the introduction. I have no objection to the category being renamed. Flibirigit ( talk) 19:28, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
- It was primarily an advocacy group, but it ran a de-facto league, the dream gap tours. The argument I am making is that the organization and these players' participation therein was central to an important era in women's hockey, and that the dream gap tours should be categorized as a league. We could rename the category to something like "PWHPA Dream Gap Tour players" if you'd prefer.
Wheatzilopochtli (
talk) 18:27, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
- The edit was somewhat helpful, but the information is buried near the bottom of the introduction. I also struggle to understand the opening sentence of the article: "nonprofit organization dedicated to advocating". Such a wording defines it more as a lobbying group, and is not intuitive that it operated as a league. Please see
WP:BETTER/GRAF1 for suggestion on wording the lead sentence(s). I do not expect this be GA-class, but more clarity would help the casual reader. Best wishes.
Flibirigit (
talk) 18:04, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
- It is unclear because the introduction of the parent article does not mention the word league nor seasons. Please update the article.
Flibirigit (
talk) 17:33, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
- Please support the argument with reliable sources, and update the parent article.
Flibirigit (
talk) 17:24, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
- Being a member of the PWHPA is a defining characteristic for women hockey players that features prominently in a concise summary of the bios for these players. It consists of a group of players who forewent participation in the NWHL/PHF to start a new league. They played competitions in an analogous manner to an internal house league, with fixed roster memberships starting from the second season. This led to the formation of the current PWHL. Membership was part of a pivotal moment in North American professional women's hockey. isaacl ( talk) 17:24, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
- Keep per Isaacl. Also, the insistence that the lead article's lead needs to be edited to keep the category is inappropriate. Categories are based on properties of the subject, not the current state of the article. Especially when the article already contains the info. oknazevad ( talk) 21:38, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 21:31, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
- Keep per above, and defining per discussion. Randy Kryn ( talk) 13:28, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
- 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:Writers on Atheism
- 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 and purge. There is a lot going on here, but the crux of what we are deciding here is whether or not these categories are defining as is. While some editors argued that it was, a supermajority was convinced the current arrangement is not a defining characteristic.
(non-admin closure)
House
Blaster (
talk · he/him) 19:34, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Writers on Atheism to Category:Writers on atheism
- Nominator's rationale: Although this was only just renamed per the nomination at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_February_18#Category:Atheist_writers, that nomination did not state any rationale for capitalising atheism as a proper noun, which does not match siblings within Category:Atheism such as Category:Criticism of atheism. – Fayenatic London 22:45, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
- Courtesy ping to the previous nominator Mason. – Fayenatic London 22:46, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
- Comment Category:Colombian atheist writers has an edit that it's part of a CFD discussion for 3/3 but I don't see it included here on this page. Liz Read! Talk! 04:59, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
- Rename per nom. Although a limited number of people are in favour of capitalising it as Atheist (or Humanist etc.) to make it stand out like Christian or Muslim etc., English literature and everyday writing overwhelmingly uses lowercase a. NLeeuw ( talk) 06:26, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
- Rename for consistency. Marcocapelle ( talk) 17:48, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
Speedy Cfd discussion
|
|---|
|
- rename: Category:American atheist writers to Category:American writers on atheism
- rename: Category:Austrian atheist writers to Category:Austrian writers on atheism
- rename: Category:English atheist writers to Category:English writers on atheism
- rename: Category:Colombian atheist writers to Category:Colombian writers on atheism
- rename: Category:French atheist writers to Category:French writers on atheism
- rename: Category:German atheist writers to Category:German writers on atheism
- rename: Category:Russian atheist writers to Category:Russian writers on atheism
- moved to full. @
Ymblanter and
PedroAcero76:
Mason (
talk) 22:22, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
- @
PedroAcero76, you should bring your concerns about the category here, and I encourage you to not making over-generalizing statements about how "the worst thing is that you [Smasongarrison] messed it all up".
Mason (
talk) 00:15, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
- Purge and rename these subcategories too, trivial intersection between religious conviction (or lack thereof) and occupation. Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:15, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
- @
Smasongarrison: first of all, I already apologized, but I used "you" as a plural noun, referring to the ones who voted for renaming the category. I also want to note that, if this is a "trivial intersection between religious conviction (or lack thereof) and occupation", what about
Category:French Roman Catholic writers and so many others? Is just "lack of religious conviction" that is trivial? What about
WP:NPOV, then? Last, these categories you (plural, assuming good faith) propose are too unspecific and may lead to original research/edit conflicts as well. I do consider that the intersection between religious conviction and occupation, in the case of a writer or philosopher, may be not so trivial, in order to understand/contextualize his/her work and ideas.
PedroAcero76 (
talk) 20:51, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- I agree that Category:French Roman Catholic writers is an equally trivial intersection. I disagree with categorizing for the sake of understanding/contextualizing a writer's work and ideas, because understanding and contextualizing does not meet WP:V. Marcocapelle ( talk) 21:24, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- @
PedroAcero76, you should bring your concerns about the category here, and I encourage you to not making over-generalizing statements about how "the worst thing is that you [Smasongarrison] messed it all up".
Mason (
talk) 00:15, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
- So, do you mean that
Category:Atheist philosophers (which possibly makes "writers on Atheism" redundant, imho) is an equally trivial intersection? I hope not... so you see that some intersections between religious conviction and occupation are definitely relevant. And writer is one of these occupations imo.
PedroAcero76 (
talk) 21:48, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- @ PedroAcero76 please review EGRS. I still strongly encourage you (singular) to be more careful about making sweeping statements. You (singular) seem to not really understand the process, as your (singular) what-about argument isn't relevant to the question at hand. A more effective argument would be to demonstrate that the intersection between being an atheist and being a writer is defining, rather than to point out that being roman catholic and a writer has the same problem. Mason ( talk) 23:27, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- So, do you mean that
Category:Atheist philosophers (which possibly makes "writers on Atheism" redundant, imho) is an equally trivial intersection? I hope not... so you see that some intersections between religious conviction and occupation are definitely relevant. And writer is one of these occupations imo.
PedroAcero76 (
talk) 21:48, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose I don't understand this proposal at all. It would be like changing Women writers to be Writers on women or Albanian writers to be Writers on Albania. Who a person is is separate from what their work focuses upon. Just because some writer is an atheist doesn't mean that they write on atheism and not all writers who write on atheism are atheists. But then, I was against the change from State of Person/Thing to being Person/Thing doing something on that State.
- And, by the way,
Category:Colombian atheist writers and
Category:Austrian atheist writers are empty categories.
Liz
Read!
Talk! 05:13, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
- It's a good point, but that only means we should Purge those writers who also happen(ed) to be atheists but didn't write anything about it, because that would be a trivial crosscat. It's a bit like Uzbekistani singer-songwriters who are Star Trek fans: unless their songs are actually about Star Trek, it's a trivial intersection. But Songs about Star Trek could be a legitimate subcategory of Category:Songs about television, and if you've got enough singer-songwriters specifically dedicated to writing Trekkie songs, you could split them by nationality.
- Similarly, I agree with the point made above that e.g. Category:French Roman Catholic writers should be renamed to Category:French writers on Roman Catholicism (or just 'Catholicism'), and that all French writers who just so happen(ed) to be Roman Catholics, but didn't really write about it, should be Purged. It's been the dominant religion in France for centuries; Catholicism was the default religion of every single writer, so that is not a notable attribute.
- As for the Colombian and Austrian cats, @
Smasongarrison emptied them out of process. Colombia had
Gustavo Álvarez Gardeazábal and
Héctor Abad Faciolince, Austria had
Sigmund Freud.
NLeeuw (
talk) 14:22, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
- @
Nederlandse Leeuw, I was purging them per the previous CFD.
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 February 18#Category:Atheist writers
Mason (
talk) 14:24, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
- Fair enough, but the result of that CfR was to Purge the parent Category:Writers on Atheism. Although it is reasonable to apply that to its subcategories as well, this was not explicitly discussed and agreed upon in that CfR. It might be stretching the result, although I'm not sure.
- At any rate, why did you purge them? Why not recategorise them to parent
Category:Writers on Atheism? It seems that, if not exactly writing "on atheism", they at least did/do write criticism of religion. Your recategorisation does not seem to have taken that into account. I'll grant that we haven't got a
Category:Writers critical of religion or something, but we do have
Category:Books critical of religion, and
Category:Critics of religions. I think these three either belong in
Category:Writers on Atheism or
Category:Critics of religions, wouldn't you agree?
NLeeuw (
talk) 14:44, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
- You're right that it wasn't explicitly discussed. However, at the time of the purge decision, there were only one or two people in the main category. So I assumed that the purge recommendation was applicable to the subcategories otherwise, what would have the point of closing with a purge nomination.
- I didn't consider any of them were actually writers about atheism. I moved them into atheists and writers categories, where they did belong. The whole point of purging is to remove people who don't fit the scope of the category. Recategorizing them to the parent would definitely not been in the spirit of the purge. Mason ( talk) 00:28, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
- @
Nederlandse Leeuw, I was purging them per the previous CFD.
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 February 18#Category:Atheist writers
Mason (
talk) 14:24, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
- And, by the way,
Category:Colombian atheist writers and
Category:Austrian atheist writers are empty categories.
Liz
Read!
Talk! 05:13, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 17:10, 11 March 2024 (UTC)- @
Liz There is a difference between "atheist writers" and "writers on atheism". Someone doesn't have to be an atheist to write about atheism, and someone who is an atheist could write about topics completely unrelated to atheism. Just like someone doesn't have to be Albanian to write about Albania, nor does someone have to be a woman to write about women. Likewise, not all Albanian writers write about Albania, and not all women writers write about women. So, in theory, there could even be two separate lists for all those things. So, really, either choice of name is kind of problematic, and the two hypothetical lists would not include exactly the same persons.
Vontheri (
talk) 13:37, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
- Yes,
Vontheri, that's exactly the point I was making so need to set me straight.
Liz
Read!
Talk! 01:37, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- I was agreeing with you... what do you mean by "need to set [you] straight"? Did you think I was disagreeing with you?
- Even if I were disagreeing, I hope I would not be doing so in a tone that came across as "setting someone straight". Maybe it's just me, but I consider "setting someone straight" as being a type of "being condescending to someone". So I hope I was not coming across as uncivil in any way, and if I was then I would appreciate suggestions as to how I could express my thoughts better as I see incivility as a tremendous problem with Wikipedia -- definitely in the top two or three problems if not #1.
- The only place thing I said that possibly by quite a stretch could be considered "disagreeing" is the last sentence where I said "So, really, either choice of name is kind of problematic, and the two hypothetical lists would not include exactly the same persons." by which I meant that perhaps the ideal solution would be to have two separate lists for each topic/issue/whatever. There would likely be a lot of overlap but how else could we choose between just one of the two types of lists when they are not synonymous?
Vontheri (
talk) 05:11, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- Please do not read so much into words. You pinged me and then stated what I thought I had said as if you were introducing a new point of view, contrary to mine. Otherwise, why ping me? But I misread the sequence of words, my mistake. Time to move on. Not sure why this discussion was relisted again. Liz Read! Talk! 02:42, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- Yes,
Vontheri, that's exactly the point I was making so need to set me straight.
Liz
Read!
Talk! 01:37, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- @
Liz There is a difference between "atheist writers" and "writers on atheism". Someone doesn't have to be an atheist to write about atheism, and someone who is an atheist could write about topics completely unrelated to atheism. Just like someone doesn't have to be Albanian to write about Albania, nor does someone have to be a woman to write about women. Likewise, not all Albanian writers write about Albania, and not all women writers write about women. So, in theory, there could even be two separate lists for all those things. So, really, either choice of name is kind of problematic, and the two hypothetical lists would not include exactly the same persons.
Vontheri (
talk) 13:37, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 21:30, 19 March 2024 (UTC)- Can this discussion be closed? There is no point in yet another relisting. No one has commented since the last relisting. Liz Read! Talk! 06:31, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
- Rename all. There seems to be a misunderstanding by the opposers here - the intention is indeed to change the scope of the categories so that it is WP:DEFINING, meaning that some of the category members will no longer fit and so will need to be purged. A writer who happens to be athiest isn't defining - it's only defining if they actually write about athiesm. — Qwerfjkl talk 10:55, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
- 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:Nazis who died by suicide in the United States
Relisted, see
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 March 27#Category:Nazis who died by suicide in the United States
Category:Savannah Bananas players
Relisted, see
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 March 27#Category:Savannah Bananas players
Category:Fantasy wrestling
- 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 ( non-admin closure) House Blaster ( talk · he/him) 02:08, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Empty category apart from the main article. The other articles in the category were Extreme Warfare, Kinnikuman, and Category:Wrestling in anime and manga but those were removed as unrelated to fantasy wrestling, a type of online game. Mika1h ( talk) 18:43, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
- Conditional support, if there is not going to be any opposition to the beforementioned removals then this nomination becomes a simple matter of WP:C2F. Marcocapelle ( talk) 21:08, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- 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:Anaheim Angels minor league affiliates
- 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 ( non-admin closure) House Blaster ( talk · he/him) 02:08, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
- Propose merging Category:Anaheim Angels minor league affiliates to Category:Los Angeles Angels minor league affiliates
- Propose merging Category:Tampa Bay Devil Rays minor league affiliates to Category:Tampa Bay Rays minor league affiliates
- Propose merging Category:Houston Colt .45s minor league affiliates to Category:Houston Astros minor league affiliates
- Propose merging Category:Boston Bees minor league affiliates to Category:Boston Braves minor league affiliates
- Propose merging Category:Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim minor league affiliates to Category:Los Angeles Angels minor league affiliates
- Propose merging Category:California Angels minor league affiliates to Category:Los Angeles Angels minor league affiliates
- Nominator's rationale: per
WP:OVERLAP. Many of these teams are the same because the parent team only changed their nicknames, not there location.
Omnis Scientia (
talk) 17:21, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
- @ Namiba, this is similar to nicknames/seasons categorization. These are the only ones I could find where they changed their name but remained in the same location. Omnis Scientia ( talk) 17:36, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support all as redundant.-- User:Namiba 18:10, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
- Merge all per nom. - Eureka Lott 14:23, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- 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:Economy of Yarmouth, Maine
- 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 ( non-admin closure) House Blaster ( talk · he/him) 15:45, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
- Propose merging Category:Economy of Yarmouth, Maine to Category:Yarmouth, Maine
- Nominator's rationale: Per NARROWCAT. Only two entries.
User:Namiba 14:59, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
- Merge per nom. Omnis Scientia ( talk) 20:27, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
- Merge per nom. Marcocapelle ( talk) 20:54, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
- Merge per nom. -- Lenticel ( talk) 02:58, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- 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.
March 19
Category:Jockeys by populated place 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: keep. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkl talk 10:44, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. Only one category in here, which isn't helpful for navigation. Mason ( talk) 00:19, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
- There were going to be several more, but I managed to piss off a few editors who didn't see why Foo sportspeople should be divided by US city, despite the fact that they are divided like that on Wikipedia for every other large country, so I stopped. I could easily add a few more to make the category worthwhile, but I'm not sure it's worth the hassle.
Grutness...
wha? 02:18, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
- It's now got five subcats, though one of them's a little skinny.
Grutness...
wha? 03:29, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
- I can understand why editors object to sportspeople by city. They usually play professional sports in different places than they were raised in and so the place where they grew up is largely trivial. Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:17, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
- It's now got five subcats, though one of them's a little skinny.
Grutness...
wha? 03:29, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose. If it was inadequate when nominated, it's adequate now. Also, it's not just sportspeople who conduct their careers away from where they were born or grew up. Last, a person's origin may be trivial to some readers but I suspect it's considered a key trait to others. It depends on how much a reader values "sense of place" or is interested in what a particular community contributes to the world. Stefen Towers among the rest! Gab • Gruntwerk 00:41, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 21:35, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
- Keep dividing by city is the accepted standard for similarly large categories.-- User:Namiba 11:08, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
- 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.
Minor league coaches
Relisted, see
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 March 27#Minor league coaches
English-language Bahamian films
Relisted, see
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 March 27#English-language Bahamian films
Category:Nazis in the United States
Relisted, see
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 March 27#Category:Nazis in the United States
Category:Professional Women's Hockey Players Association 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.
- The result of the discussion was: keep. This discussion has a bit of a history; see this discussion at WT:HOCKEY for a bit more context. With that out of the way, this is actually a fairly simple close. The rationale for deletion/recategorization is that membership in an advocacy group is not a defining characteristic, which is undoubtedly true. However, as keep !voters pointed out, this was not merely an advocacy group. It was an actual league which played actual games (though in fairness to those who supported deletion, I will echo the fact that at the time it was not exactly clear from reading Professional Women's Hockey Players Association that it was more than an advocacy group). Playing in the league is defining, and therefore this is a valid category. (non-admin closure) House Blaster ( talk · he/him) 03:06, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: A non-defining characteristic. User:Namiba 02:28, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
- Keep, given that all players who played for a certain team/in a certain league are categorized as such, PWHPA participants in the pre-PWHL era ought to be categorized in the same way. Wheatzilopochtli ( talk) 02:57, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
- Delete, mere membership of an advocacy organization is not a defining characteristic. Activists and chairs may be categorized as such though.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 06:17, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nom and Marco. Omnis Scientia ( talk) 18:33, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
- It is not just an advocacy organization. It was also a league that the players played in. Wheatzilopochtli ( talk) 23:26, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
- Recategorize players, then delete. Membership in an association is not defining. Players should go into their respective leagues/teams if not already categorized:
Category:Canadian Women's Hockey League players,
Category:Premier Hockey Federation players,
Category:Professional Women's Hockey League (player subcat needed).
Flibirigit (
talk) 12:31, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
- Note, I've created Category:Professional Women's Hockey League players and the team subcategories.-- User:Namiba 14:31, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
- It is not just an association, it was a league those players played in. Wheatzilopochtli ( talk) 23:27, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Per discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 16:53, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
-
Marcocapelle,
Flibirigit,
Wheatzilopochtli,
Isaacl,
Oknazevad,
Fayenatic london,
Namiba,
Omnis Scientia, courtesy ping. I've reopened the discussion. —
Qwerfjkl
talk 16:56, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
- As per
my comments, changes need to made to the parent article at
Professional Women's Hockey Players Association, to support arguments that this is a league and not an advocacy group.
Flibirigit (
talk) 17:14, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
- While not clear from the introduction, this information can be found later in the article. Wheatzilopochtli ( talk) 17:25, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
- As per
my comments, changes need to made to the parent article at
Professional Women's Hockey Players Association, to support arguments that this is a league and not an advocacy group.
Flibirigit (
talk) 17:14, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose for two reasons. First, the organization operated as a league, with consistent teams and a named championship in all but its first season. Its seasons
have their own articles and
appear in its players' stats tables. Second, members of the PWHPA participated in a boycott of the NWHL/PHF and other women's leagues, which directly led to the dissolution of the PHF and the creation of the PWHL, so even without respect to the fact that it operated as a league, PWHPA participation ought to be considered a defining characteristic. Additionally, subcategories should be added for the teams, as from the second season onwards the teams remained consistent within each season.
Wheatzilopochtli (
talk) 17:21, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
- Please support the argument with reliable sources, and update the parent article.
Flibirigit (
talk) 17:24, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
- All of these sources are cited in the parent article. I'm not sure what is unclear.
- On the organization operating as a league:
- On the importance of the PWHPA to women's hockey;
- https://www.nbcsportsbayarea.com/nhl/pwhpa-stars-not-just-playing-for-bragging-rights-vs-sharks-alumni/1338631/
- https://theathletic.com/4245465/2023/02/23/pwhpa-union-negotiating-cba/
- https://www.thestar.com/sports/hockey/pwhpa-union-and-contract-talks-reportedly-move-new-women-s-hockey-league-closer-to-reality/article_51b3a1f4-7e0e-544e-ae53-6b459c7e7a21.html
- https://www.espn.com/nhl/story/_/id/28846979/what-comes-next-professional-women-hockey-saga
- Wheatzilopochtli ( talk) 17:31, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
- It is unclear because the introduction of the parent article does not mention the word league nor seasons. Please update the article.
Flibirigit (
talk) 17:33, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
- I have updated the article introduction to clarify that the dream gap tours functioned as seasons of a league. My other point, that membership is a defining characteristic regardless of the fact that it operated as a league, was already supported in the article introduction.
- Wheatzilopochtli ( talk) 17:38, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
- The edit was somewhat helpful, but the information is buried near the bottom of the introduction. I also struggle to understand the opening sentence of the article: "nonprofit organization dedicated to advocating". Such a wording defines it more as a lobbying group, and is not intuitive that it operated as a league. Please see
WP:BETTER/GRAF1 for suggestion on wording the lead sentence(s). I do not expect this be GA-class, but more clarity would help the casual reader. Best wishes.
Flibirigit (
talk) 18:04, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
- It was primarily an advocacy group, but it ran a de-facto league, the dream gap tours. The argument I am making is that the organization and these players' participation therein was central to an important era in women's hockey, and that the dream gap tours should be categorized as a league. We could rename the category to something like "PWHPA Dream Gap Tour players" if you'd prefer.
Wheatzilopochtli (
talk) 18:27, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
- I understand your argument, but the introduction is not clear to the casual reader who is likely to comment at CFD. I suggest placing the mention of a league and the dream gap closer to the beginning of the introduction. I have no objection to the category being renamed. Flibirigit ( talk) 19:28, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
- It was primarily an advocacy group, but it ran a de-facto league, the dream gap tours. The argument I am making is that the organization and these players' participation therein was central to an important era in women's hockey, and that the dream gap tours should be categorized as a league. We could rename the category to something like "PWHPA Dream Gap Tour players" if you'd prefer.
Wheatzilopochtli (
talk) 18:27, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
- The edit was somewhat helpful, but the information is buried near the bottom of the introduction. I also struggle to understand the opening sentence of the article: "nonprofit organization dedicated to advocating". Such a wording defines it more as a lobbying group, and is not intuitive that it operated as a league. Please see
WP:BETTER/GRAF1 for suggestion on wording the lead sentence(s). I do not expect this be GA-class, but more clarity would help the casual reader. Best wishes.
Flibirigit (
talk) 18:04, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
- It is unclear because the introduction of the parent article does not mention the word league nor seasons. Please update the article.
Flibirigit (
talk) 17:33, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
- Please support the argument with reliable sources, and update the parent article.
Flibirigit (
talk) 17:24, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
- Being a member of the PWHPA is a defining characteristic for women hockey players that features prominently in a concise summary of the bios for these players. It consists of a group of players who forewent participation in the NWHL/PHF to start a new league. They played competitions in an analogous manner to an internal house league, with fixed roster memberships starting from the second season. This led to the formation of the current PWHL. Membership was part of a pivotal moment in North American professional women's hockey. isaacl ( talk) 17:24, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
- Keep per Isaacl. Also, the insistence that the lead article's lead needs to be edited to keep the category is inappropriate. Categories are based on properties of the subject, not the current state of the article. Especially when the article already contains the info. oknazevad ( talk) 21:38, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 21:31, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
- Keep per above, and defining per discussion. Randy Kryn ( talk) 13:28, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
- 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:Writers on Atheism
- 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 and purge. There is a lot going on here, but the crux of what we are deciding here is whether or not these categories are defining as is. While some editors argued that it was, a supermajority was convinced the current arrangement is not a defining characteristic.
(non-admin closure)
House
Blaster (
talk · he/him) 19:34, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Writers on Atheism to Category:Writers on atheism
- Nominator's rationale: Although this was only just renamed per the nomination at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_February_18#Category:Atheist_writers, that nomination did not state any rationale for capitalising atheism as a proper noun, which does not match siblings within Category:Atheism such as Category:Criticism of atheism. – Fayenatic London 22:45, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
- Courtesy ping to the previous nominator Mason. – Fayenatic London 22:46, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
- Comment Category:Colombian atheist writers has an edit that it's part of a CFD discussion for 3/3 but I don't see it included here on this page. Liz Read! Talk! 04:59, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
- Rename per nom. Although a limited number of people are in favour of capitalising it as Atheist (or Humanist etc.) to make it stand out like Christian or Muslim etc., English literature and everyday writing overwhelmingly uses lowercase a. NLeeuw ( talk) 06:26, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
- Rename for consistency. Marcocapelle ( talk) 17:48, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
Speedy Cfd discussion
|
|---|
|
- rename: Category:American atheist writers to Category:American writers on atheism
- rename: Category:Austrian atheist writers to Category:Austrian writers on atheism
- rename: Category:English atheist writers to Category:English writers on atheism
- rename: Category:Colombian atheist writers to Category:Colombian writers on atheism
- rename: Category:French atheist writers to Category:French writers on atheism
- rename: Category:German atheist writers to Category:German writers on atheism
- rename: Category:Russian atheist writers to Category:Russian writers on atheism
- moved to full. @
Ymblanter and
PedroAcero76:
Mason (
talk) 22:22, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
- @
PedroAcero76, you should bring your concerns about the category here, and I encourage you to not making over-generalizing statements about how "the worst thing is that you [Smasongarrison] messed it all up".
Mason (
talk) 00:15, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
- Purge and rename these subcategories too, trivial intersection between religious conviction (or lack thereof) and occupation. Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:15, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
- @
Smasongarrison: first of all, I already apologized, but I used "you" as a plural noun, referring to the ones who voted for renaming the category. I also want to note that, if this is a "trivial intersection between religious conviction (or lack thereof) and occupation", what about
Category:French Roman Catholic writers and so many others? Is just "lack of religious conviction" that is trivial? What about
WP:NPOV, then? Last, these categories you (plural, assuming good faith) propose are too unspecific and may lead to original research/edit conflicts as well. I do consider that the intersection between religious conviction and occupation, in the case of a writer or philosopher, may be not so trivial, in order to understand/contextualize his/her work and ideas.
PedroAcero76 (
talk) 20:51, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- I agree that Category:French Roman Catholic writers is an equally trivial intersection. I disagree with categorizing for the sake of understanding/contextualizing a writer's work and ideas, because understanding and contextualizing does not meet WP:V. Marcocapelle ( talk) 21:24, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- @
PedroAcero76, you should bring your concerns about the category here, and I encourage you to not making over-generalizing statements about how "the worst thing is that you [Smasongarrison] messed it all up".
Mason (
talk) 00:15, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
- So, do you mean that
Category:Atheist philosophers (which possibly makes "writers on Atheism" redundant, imho) is an equally trivial intersection? I hope not... so you see that some intersections between religious conviction and occupation are definitely relevant. And writer is one of these occupations imo.
PedroAcero76 (
talk) 21:48, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- @ PedroAcero76 please review EGRS. I still strongly encourage you (singular) to be more careful about making sweeping statements. You (singular) seem to not really understand the process, as your (singular) what-about argument isn't relevant to the question at hand. A more effective argument would be to demonstrate that the intersection between being an atheist and being a writer is defining, rather than to point out that being roman catholic and a writer has the same problem. Mason ( talk) 23:27, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- So, do you mean that
Category:Atheist philosophers (which possibly makes "writers on Atheism" redundant, imho) is an equally trivial intersection? I hope not... so you see that some intersections between religious conviction and occupation are definitely relevant. And writer is one of these occupations imo.
PedroAcero76 (
talk) 21:48, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose I don't understand this proposal at all. It would be like changing Women writers to be Writers on women or Albanian writers to be Writers on Albania. Who a person is is separate from what their work focuses upon. Just because some writer is an atheist doesn't mean that they write on atheism and not all writers who write on atheism are atheists. But then, I was against the change from State of Person/Thing to being Person/Thing doing something on that State.
- And, by the way,
Category:Colombian atheist writers and
Category:Austrian atheist writers are empty categories.
Liz
Read!
Talk! 05:13, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
- It's a good point, but that only means we should Purge those writers who also happen(ed) to be atheists but didn't write anything about it, because that would be a trivial crosscat. It's a bit like Uzbekistani singer-songwriters who are Star Trek fans: unless their songs are actually about Star Trek, it's a trivial intersection. But Songs about Star Trek could be a legitimate subcategory of Category:Songs about television, and if you've got enough singer-songwriters specifically dedicated to writing Trekkie songs, you could split them by nationality.
- Similarly, I agree with the point made above that e.g. Category:French Roman Catholic writers should be renamed to Category:French writers on Roman Catholicism (or just 'Catholicism'), and that all French writers who just so happen(ed) to be Roman Catholics, but didn't really write about it, should be Purged. It's been the dominant religion in France for centuries; Catholicism was the default religion of every single writer, so that is not a notable attribute.
- As for the Colombian and Austrian cats, @
Smasongarrison emptied them out of process. Colombia had
Gustavo Álvarez Gardeazábal and
Héctor Abad Faciolince, Austria had
Sigmund Freud.
NLeeuw (
talk) 14:22, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
- @
Nederlandse Leeuw, I was purging them per the previous CFD.
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 February 18#Category:Atheist writers
Mason (
talk) 14:24, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
- Fair enough, but the result of that CfR was to Purge the parent Category:Writers on Atheism. Although it is reasonable to apply that to its subcategories as well, this was not explicitly discussed and agreed upon in that CfR. It might be stretching the result, although I'm not sure.
- At any rate, why did you purge them? Why not recategorise them to parent
Category:Writers on Atheism? It seems that, if not exactly writing "on atheism", they at least did/do write criticism of religion. Your recategorisation does not seem to have taken that into account. I'll grant that we haven't got a
Category:Writers critical of religion or something, but we do have
Category:Books critical of religion, and
Category:Critics of religions. I think these three either belong in
Category:Writers on Atheism or
Category:Critics of religions, wouldn't you agree?
NLeeuw (
talk) 14:44, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
- You're right that it wasn't explicitly discussed. However, at the time of the purge decision, there were only one or two people in the main category. So I assumed that the purge recommendation was applicable to the subcategories otherwise, what would have the point of closing with a purge nomination.
- I didn't consider any of them were actually writers about atheism. I moved them into atheists and writers categories, where they did belong. The whole point of purging is to remove people who don't fit the scope of the category. Recategorizing them to the parent would definitely not been in the spirit of the purge. Mason ( talk) 00:28, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
- @
Nederlandse Leeuw, I was purging them per the previous CFD.
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 February 18#Category:Atheist writers
Mason (
talk) 14:24, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
- And, by the way,
Category:Colombian atheist writers and
Category:Austrian atheist writers are empty categories.
Liz
Read!
Talk! 05:13, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 17:10, 11 March 2024 (UTC)- @
Liz There is a difference between "atheist writers" and "writers on atheism". Someone doesn't have to be an atheist to write about atheism, and someone who is an atheist could write about topics completely unrelated to atheism. Just like someone doesn't have to be Albanian to write about Albania, nor does someone have to be a woman to write about women. Likewise, not all Albanian writers write about Albania, and not all women writers write about women. So, in theory, there could even be two separate lists for all those things. So, really, either choice of name is kind of problematic, and the two hypothetical lists would not include exactly the same persons.
Vontheri (
talk) 13:37, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
- Yes,
Vontheri, that's exactly the point I was making so need to set me straight.
Liz
Read!
Talk! 01:37, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- I was agreeing with you... what do you mean by "need to set [you] straight"? Did you think I was disagreeing with you?
- Even if I were disagreeing, I hope I would not be doing so in a tone that came across as "setting someone straight". Maybe it's just me, but I consider "setting someone straight" as being a type of "being condescending to someone". So I hope I was not coming across as uncivil in any way, and if I was then I would appreciate suggestions as to how I could express my thoughts better as I see incivility as a tremendous problem with Wikipedia -- definitely in the top two or three problems if not #1.
- The only place thing I said that possibly by quite a stretch could be considered "disagreeing" is the last sentence where I said "So, really, either choice of name is kind of problematic, and the two hypothetical lists would not include exactly the same persons." by which I meant that perhaps the ideal solution would be to have two separate lists for each topic/issue/whatever. There would likely be a lot of overlap but how else could we choose between just one of the two types of lists when they are not synonymous?
Vontheri (
talk) 05:11, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- Please do not read so much into words. You pinged me and then stated what I thought I had said as if you were introducing a new point of view, contrary to mine. Otherwise, why ping me? But I misread the sequence of words, my mistake. Time to move on. Not sure why this discussion was relisted again. Liz Read! Talk! 02:42, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- Yes,
Vontheri, that's exactly the point I was making so need to set me straight.
Liz
Read!
Talk! 01:37, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- @
Liz There is a difference between "atheist writers" and "writers on atheism". Someone doesn't have to be an atheist to write about atheism, and someone who is an atheist could write about topics completely unrelated to atheism. Just like someone doesn't have to be Albanian to write about Albania, nor does someone have to be a woman to write about women. Likewise, not all Albanian writers write about Albania, and not all women writers write about women. So, in theory, there could even be two separate lists for all those things. So, really, either choice of name is kind of problematic, and the two hypothetical lists would not include exactly the same persons.
Vontheri (
talk) 13:37, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 21:30, 19 March 2024 (UTC)- Can this discussion be closed? There is no point in yet another relisting. No one has commented since the last relisting. Liz Read! Talk! 06:31, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
- Rename all. There seems to be a misunderstanding by the opposers here - the intention is indeed to change the scope of the categories so that it is WP:DEFINING, meaning that some of the category members will no longer fit and so will need to be purged. A writer who happens to be athiest isn't defining - it's only defining if they actually write about athiesm. — Qwerfjkl talk 10:55, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
- 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:Nazis who died by suicide in the United States
Relisted, see
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 March 27#Category:Nazis who died by suicide in the United States
Category:Savannah Bananas players
Relisted, see
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 March 27#Category:Savannah Bananas players
Category:Fantasy wrestling
- 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 ( non-admin closure) House Blaster ( talk · he/him) 02:08, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Empty category apart from the main article. The other articles in the category were Extreme Warfare, Kinnikuman, and Category:Wrestling in anime and manga but those were removed as unrelated to fantasy wrestling, a type of online game. Mika1h ( talk) 18:43, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
- Conditional support, if there is not going to be any opposition to the beforementioned removals then this nomination becomes a simple matter of WP:C2F. Marcocapelle ( talk) 21:08, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- 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:Anaheim Angels minor league affiliates
- 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 ( non-admin closure) House Blaster ( talk · he/him) 02:08, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
- Propose merging Category:Anaheim Angels minor league affiliates to Category:Los Angeles Angels minor league affiliates
- Propose merging Category:Tampa Bay Devil Rays minor league affiliates to Category:Tampa Bay Rays minor league affiliates
- Propose merging Category:Houston Colt .45s minor league affiliates to Category:Houston Astros minor league affiliates
- Propose merging Category:Boston Bees minor league affiliates to Category:Boston Braves minor league affiliates
- Propose merging Category:Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim minor league affiliates to Category:Los Angeles Angels minor league affiliates
- Propose merging Category:California Angels minor league affiliates to Category:Los Angeles Angels minor league affiliates
- Nominator's rationale: per
WP:OVERLAP. Many of these teams are the same because the parent team only changed their nicknames, not there location.
Omnis Scientia (
talk) 17:21, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
- @ Namiba, this is similar to nicknames/seasons categorization. These are the only ones I could find where they changed their name but remained in the same location. Omnis Scientia ( talk) 17:36, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support all as redundant.-- User:Namiba 18:10, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
- Merge all per nom. - Eureka Lott 14:23, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- 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:Economy of Yarmouth, Maine
- 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 ( non-admin closure) House Blaster ( talk · he/him) 15:45, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
- Propose merging Category:Economy of Yarmouth, Maine to Category:Yarmouth, Maine
- Nominator's rationale: Per NARROWCAT. Only two entries.
User:Namiba 14:59, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
- Merge per nom. Omnis Scientia ( talk) 20:27, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
- Merge per nom. Marcocapelle ( talk) 20:54, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
- Merge per nom. -- Lenticel ( talk) 02:58, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- 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.