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.
ℯxplicit 06:14, 25 July 2018 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Two names for the same thing.
Rathfelder (
talk) 18:50, 13 July 2018 (UTC)reply
Oppose. The "organizations" are usually politically active, like
Motorcycle Action Group and national in scope; the clubs are usually local or regional riders groups, like
Düsseldorfer Automobil- und Motorsport-Club 05, or sometimes national groups like
Jewish Motorcyclists Alliance with local chapters. Maybe a better description in the categories themselves would help. Or possibly renaming "organizations" to "activist organizations", "motorcyclists' rights organizations" or some such. Note that some of the outlaw motorcycle gangs listed at
Category:Outlaw motorcycle clubs are actually international in scope, so a strict categorization by breadth of span is problematic. But the breakdown into casual clubs and outlaw gangs is important to retain IMO. It's a bit of a mess and I'm more than willing to discuss options. ☆
Bri (
talk) 02:22, 14 July 2018 (UTC)reply
Oppose The clubs category refers to the common meaning of a club, a group of common interests and activities who meet and know each other. The organization category is mainly for the kind of groups that motorcyclists might sign up for or support, but not be engaged with in the same manner as a club. As Brian says, they usually exist not to ride together but to advocate for some cause, or to support a charity, or as a sanctioning body like FIM or Iron Butt. The names for these are a nightmare: both
Category:Motorcycle associations and
Category:Motorcyclists organizations are somewhat arbitrarily named, and both could be improved by renaming, splitting, or merging somehow. But not by messing with
Category:Motorcycle clubs or
Category:Outlaw motorcycle clubs. Both of those, while problematic for various reasons, are well-defined if you are aware of the historical reasons behind the terminology (see
Motorcycle club and
Outlaw motorcycle club).
oppose two different things as the contents of the categories and their parents clearly show
Hmains (
talk) 17:01, 14 July 2018 (UTC)reply
I don't think the contents of the categories show that at all.
Jewish Motorcyclists Alliance,
Women's International Motorcycle Association etc are clearly politically active. What they have in common is that they are all for motorcyclists. Otherwise they are very diverse. The only clearly defined subcategories are bloodbikes and Outlaw motorcycle clubs.
Rathfelder (
talk) 22:16, 14 July 2018 (UTC)reply
We may need three categories: one category for individual clubs, one category for federations/associations of which individual clubs can become a member of, and one (parent) category for all other.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 08:39, 15 July 2018 (UTC)reply
Oppose -- Many of the organisations are not clubs. The clubs would be appropriate as a subcat.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 19:05, 15 July 2018 (UTC)reply
Oppose - we have
Category:Motorcycle associations, nicely organised into various distinct subcats. The nom is flawed as an organisation is a more general term than a club (which has local connotations).
Oculi (
talk) 23:58, 16 July 2018 (UTC)reply
The distinctions between clubs, associations and organisations are a bit too subtle to be useful. All the other categories are for Motorcycles, not Motorcyclists, and its not apparent what distinction is intended.
Rathfelder (
talk) 07:04, 18 July 2018 (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:Ukrainian women of World War II
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.
Timrollpickering 21:07, 20 July 2018 (UTC)reply
Merge per nom Same scope.
Dimadick (
talk) 06:07, 14 July 2018 (UTC)reply
Agree, merge per nom. Consistency in naming (Wikipedia categories, people, citied etc.) is important for the credibility of Wikipedia. — Yulia Romero •
Talk to me! 14:15, 14 July 2018 (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:History of the American stock exchanges
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.
Timrollpickering 18:11, 20 July 2018 (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:Template documentation message boxes
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.
Timrollpickering 18:12, 20 July 2018 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: The proposed new title is more accurate in regards to its members. The name as it stands makes one think that the category contains all message-box templates placed primarily on template documentations, which would then include templates like {{
Intricate template}} and {{
High-use}}. A move would allow for categorizing message-boxes marking inadequate documentations as a subcat of a new category named "Template documentation message boxes" that would all contain message-box templates intended primarily to be placed on doc pages. —Mr. Guye (
talk) (
contribs) 19:54, 5 July 2018 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Marcocapelle (
talk) 07:12, 13 July 2018 (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 result of the discussion was:keep.
ℯxplicit 06:14, 25 July 2018 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Previously deleted at
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 February 1#Category:Norwegian 2. Divisjon players. Granted, the nomination rationale (by yours truly) wasn't the most well-written, but allow me to expand. The 2. divisjon is the third tier of Norwegian football. In the 1990s it consisted of 72 teams; less teams nowadays. The league is wholly non-professional save for a few select players, meaning that football is a part-time pastime besides education or dayjobs. Since playing in the league does not make a player notable, it is not a defining characteristic of any player. To rephrase, not any player with a Wikipedia page is remembered as "the 2. divisjon player A or B".
Geschichte (
talk) 21:26, 2 July 2018 (UTC)reply
Note: This discussion has been included in
WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.
Hhkohh (
talk) 05:02, 3 July 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep - it wouldn't be empty if the nominator hadn't
removed it from the only page currently in this category (and that's very hard to AGF for). It's a valid category, many notable players will have played in this division, and so ripe for expansion. We have plenty of division categories for amateur/semi-pro divisions. @
Hhkohh: to reconsider.
GiantSnowman 07:45, 3 July 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete - it was indeed deleted earlier
at cfd in 2017. It suffices to categorise players by the clubs they played for, not by every conceivable division.
Oculi (
talk) 08:41, 3 July 2018 (UTC)reply
@
Oculi: - there is long-standing consensus at
WT:FOOTBALL, that, where possible, we categorise by both club played for and division played in. What's the point of having an incomplete set?
GiantSnowman 08:46, 3 July 2018 (UTC)reply
Moreover the single occupant of the category
Odin Bjørtuft should be removed as his only club mentioned is
Odds BK, said to be in the top tier.
Oculi (
talk) 08:55, 3 July 2018 (UTC)reply
No, it also shows he played for Odd's reserve team in this very league, as confirmed by the Soccerway reference...
GiantSnowman 08:58, 3 July 2018 (UTC)reply
And I've just added 4 more Odd players I've quickly found have also played in this division this season...
GiantSnowman 09:06, 3 July 2018 (UTC)reply
It shows nothing of the sort. It does mention Odds II but that redirects to
Odds BK, which makes no mention of a reserve team. Anyway categories are to capture defining characteristics, which this is not, regardless of the views of
WT:FOOTBALL. Nearly every footballer will have occasional games for the reserve team.
Oculi (
talk) 21:46, 4 July 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete -- such categories should only exist for fully professional leagues. If kept, it should ne moved to Category:Norwegian_2._Divisjon_players.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 17:06, 5 July 2018 (UTC)reply
@
Peterkingiron: there is long-standing consensus that there is no requirement for categories to be fully-pro only - and why would the name be moved so that it is different from the corresponding article name?
GiantSnowman 09:17, 9 July 2018 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Marcocapelle (
talk) 06:50, 13 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisting comment, this is a relisting of a discussion that I had closed prematurely. Apologies for the confusion.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 07:01, 13 July 2018 (UTC)reply
procedural follow-up on relisting - settled
Can an admin restore it? thanks
Hhkohh (
talk) 06:52, 13 July 2018 (UTC)reply
@
Marcocapelle: You can also request
GiantSnowman to restore as he is also an admin and also should restore article original category
Hhkohh (
talk) 07:05, 13 July 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep - can't see a problem with keeping this, there are many such categories for leagues which are not fully pro and it has never caused a problem.
Category:National League (English football) players, for example, has existed for years and has nearly four thousand players in it.......... --
ChrisTheDude (
talk) 07:42, 13 July 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep per ChrisTheDude. Don't understand why this category's existence is a problem.
Number57 16:15, 13 July 2018 (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:Deuterostomes and humans
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.
Timrollpickering 09:48, 20 July 2018 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary category layer. See previous CFDs e.g.
in March. Note: These categories were created by the now-blocked R567/Caftaric. DexDor(talk) 06:05, 13 July 2018 (UTC)reply
Merge per nom. and outcomes of previous discussions.
UnitedStatesian (
talk) 12:14, 13 July 2018 (UTC)reply
Merge per nom and previous consensus.
Oculi (
talk) 23:10, 13 July 2018 (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:Invertebrates of Niger
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.
Timrollpickering 09:50, 20 July 2018 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: That a species (e.g. Neritina rubricata or Lanistes ovum) is found in a particular country is non-defining. Note: Previous CFDs (
example) have deleted categories for insects etc. Note: Most/all of these categories were created by NotWith. DexDor(talk) 04:30, 13 July 2018 (UTC)reply
Support These are yet more typical examples of categories created either without consensus or against consensus by this editor.
Peter coxhead (
talk) 06:12, 13 July 2018 (UTC)reply
Support per typical lack of merit of NotWith's efforts.
Oculi (
talk) 23:12, 13 July 2018 (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:Lepidoptera of Mali
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.
Timrollpickering 09:51, 20 July 2018 (UTC)reply
Support As per previous agreement to merge categories of this kind.
Peter coxhead (
talk) 06:13, 13 July 2018 (UTC)reply
Support For consistency.
Dimadick (
talk) 09:03, 13 July 2018 (UTC)reply
Support for consistency.
Oculi (
talk) 23:13, 13 July 2018 (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:Queer directors
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.
Timrollpickering 09:51, 20 July 2018 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: (or to LGBT film and television directors if the other proposal is successful) Not a needed split.
JDDJS (
talk) 03:53, 13 July 2018 (UTC)reply
Merge per nom: there's no need to quadrantize LGBT(Q) in this instance.
Bearcat (
talk) 20:32, 14 July 2018 (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:LGBT directors
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.
I have no problem with splitting into two articles. However, that would require someone to manually go through all 489 articles and see if they're notable for directing films, television or both.
JDDJS (
talk) 15:05, 14 July 2018 (UTC)reply
@
Mangoe @
Marcocapelle The parent
Category:Directors says it's for entertainment directors, but includes categories for all types of directors, including business directors. Clearly some clean up needs to be done to that category as well, but I feel that doesn't mean that we can't rename this category to something less ambiguous in the meantime.
JDDJS (
talk) 15:02, 14 July 2018 (UTC)reply
It would not make sense to have one discussion about
Category:LGBT directors and later on another discussion about
Category:Directors with possibly two different outcomes. So it would be better to add renaming
Category:Directors in this nomination right away. Second, the disambiguator "film and television" is probably too narrow, it should rather be something like "arts and media".
Marcocapelle (
talk) 15:30, 14 July 2018 (UTC)reply
Comment: I'm not sure what the right answer is here. Certainly "film and television" isn't the right answer here, as for instance this category should rightly also include theatre directors — but "arts and media" isn't the right road either, because an art director is a person in the magazine publishing industry and a media director is a PR agent, which are outside the intended scope. I do agree that we have to rethink this tree — what a "corporate director" does is so fundamentally different from what a television, film or theatre director does that even though we happen to use the same word for both jobs they still don't belong together in any shared category tree at all. So we need to find some better way of splitting them, because there's no basis for a category that would group them together. But I don't know what the right answer is.
Bearcat (
talk) 20:30, 14 July 2018 (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.