Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 March 3

March 3

Category:General elections to Dáil Éireann

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 back to Category:General elections in the Republic of Ireland. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:18, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category was created yesterday, but duplicates Category:General elections in the Republic of Ireland, in which it now sits. All of the articles that were in the original category have been moved into the new category except one. Simply put, I do not understand the point of the new category. Number 57 22:15, 3 March 2016 (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:Zhiqing

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. MER-C 10:07, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Current article is at sent-down youth per WP:UE, WP:CONSISTENCY. Timmyshin (talk) 17:47, 3 March 2016 (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:Seasons 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.
The result of the discussion was: keep Category:Winter in Canada and Category:Winter in the United States, delete other nominated categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:08, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: All categories "Winter in…[(former) country]" and "Seasons in [(former) country]" serve only to hold "Winter sports in…" subcategories which would be better suited in Category:Sports by type and country. giso6150 (talk) 14:44, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, as the creator of these brand-new categories, and looking forward to prove their merits of existence. It is however already obvious that without this category tree, the seasonal aspect of winter sports wouldn't be appropriately connected to related seasonal topics. --PanchoS (talk) 14:56, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for combining these. Please provide any examples of what those other seasonal topics might be. I found no other existing "by country" topics under Category:Seasons. giso6150 (talk) 14:58, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@PanchoS: Why have you continued to add more categories exactly like the ones that are being discussed? Let's discuss this, please. giso6150 (talk) 19:02, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, see WP:FAITACCOMPLI; you can't establish a "standard" that others object to by ensure that it's everywhere as if this will make their objections go away. 73.71.224.145 (talk) 05:57, 4 March 2016 (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:Sports tactics

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 per nomination. Although there has not been much participation here, given the overlap the contents do need to be merged because of the overlap. This close is without prejudice to further discussions on renaming or even a better split if such could be justified. – Fayenatic London 20:55, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Accidental content fork with massive overlap. The techniques category is general; tactics are just a particular range of techniques. Yet the content of the tactics category and its subcats is not actually limited to "tactics", but includes all sorts of things including strategy (essentially the opposite of tactics), skills, formations, plays, captaincy, analytics, offense, defense, coverage, game-time management, play calling systems, blocking, kicks & punts, turns, moves, tackles, training, goals, bounces, fending, player order, grip, pitch/throw, pinch & switch hitters, rebound, passing, finishes, and various sports-pedagogical systems. All of these fit under "techniques" (where most of them are also already found), but few are, properly speaking, tactics. The "buried" and misnamed cat. should completely merge into the higher-level cat., including with the parent categorizations and sister project templates, etc. It's basically the same category; the merge-to target was created as a subcat of the main sports category (for the topics as such) and the merge-from one was created under the sports terminology category (for the topics' titles as jargon).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 06:33, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WT:SPORTS has been notified of this discussion.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 06:33, 3 March 2016 (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:Wikipedians by alma mater: Emmanuel College, Cambridge

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. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:20, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: List of NN individuals. reddogsix (talk) 00:22, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is one of many categories for Wikipedians (e.g. see Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: University of Cambridge). What's the problem with this one? DexDor (talk) 06:48, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Category creator here. Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: University of Cambridge "This category has the following 17 subcategories, out of 17 total." I added one to the existing 16. Perhaps a few of the 146 users in that category might take advantage of my new one. Cambridge people generally associate themselves more with their college than with the university. Narky Blert (talk) 10:34, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – unless there is a new requirement that wikipedians should be notable. Oculi (talk) 12:03, 3 March 2016 (UTC) (not notable)[reply]
  • Keep: Invalid rationale; content policies and guidelines do not apply to internal materials. (Even if the nom were amended to provide a different rationale, I would still oppose deletion unless it were a valid one I did not anticipate. Categories like this help editors find people with mutual interests and experience. We have lots and lots of these, for all sorts of non-trivial things, not just alma maters).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 12:57, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Probably merge -- I would refer this (and all cognate categories to be Category:Wikipedian alumni of Emmanuel College, Cambridge. This one has three articles which is rather small for a category. I suspect that we do not need more than one for category for Cambridge Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: University of Cambridge, which I would prefer to beCategory:Wikipedian alumni of University of Cambridge. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:25, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, as a lot of the coverage of Oxbridge issues is dealt with at the college level, having Wikipedia alumni by Oxbridge college rather than by the university itself is helpful. I've got a lot of the Jesus College, Oxford, material to good or featured status and if someone wanted to do the same for another college it would help to know who had particular links to that college and so might have information/sources that others elsewhere in the university wouldn't.
  • Keep and don't merge per my comments above and per the failure to distinguish between Wikipedian user categories and mainspace categories in the first instance. BencherliteTalk 15:12, 9 March 2016 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_March_3&oldid=1074816988"
Uses material from the Wikipedia article Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 March 3, released under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license.