Cannabis Ruderalis

thcscience_admin
< June 8 June 10 >

June 9[edit]

Category:Zahid Hussain family[edit]

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. The Bushranger One ping only 23:15, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. A category for a family consisting of two people, father and son. Delete per WP:SMALLCAT no likelihood of further expansion. Tassedethe (talk) 23:16, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. No reasonable prospect of expansion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:45, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, article makes no mention of further notable relatives. – Fayenatic London 13:14, 11 June 2012 (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:People from Holland, Vermont[edit]

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 Derby and Barton, upmerge Holland. The Bushranger One ping only 23:16, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Recommend upmerging to Category:People from Orleans County, Vermont. Holland, Vermont only has 588 people in it and its doubtful that there will ever be more than a handful of articles in Wikipedia for them. I also recommend upmerging the following, both of which have less than 5000 people each:
  • Category:People from Derby, Vermont
  • Category:People from Barton, Vermont Kumioko (talk) 23:14, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge all of these into their respective county articles per WP:SMALLCAT...William 23:27, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 1, upmerge the others. Category:People from Barton, Vermont has 7 articles, so by my rule-of-thumb of 6 existing articles, it is big enough to keep. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:42, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • (changing my !vote)Keep Barton and Derby, but upmerge Holland. Now that Derby is better populated, it's also a keep. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:07, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since I appear to have created both Holland and Barton, I just want to note for the record that I create categories outside of my areas of personal knowledge (as Vermont is) only when they're specifically on the list of redlinked categories and seem potentially justifiable (rather than just deletable.) So these don't exist because I thought they were needed; they exist because somebody else added them to articles as a redlink and then left them behind. At any rate, I was able to get Derby up into the double digits just by spending two minutes scanning the town's "what links here", and while I didn't do a complete check for Barton, I clicked on just one random name and found that it could have been but wasn't in that category — which means it's now up to eight rather than seven, with the potential for further additions. However, I did the same check for Holland and failed to turn up any new entries for the category at all. Further, the population of a town is entirely irrelevant to whether it should have such a category or not — the only number we care about is the number of articles we have on here about people from that place. Keep Derby and Barton; eight articles is sufficient for a category. But upmerge Holland. Bearcat (talk) 05:30, 14 June 2012 (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.

Sutton[edit]

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 to the "(London borough)" format. There are two equally viable options on the table, so I'm going with the one that more closely matches other categories of this type. That said, this creates a precedent for other London borough categories, so is open to reexamination if the tree doesn't want to bear this much weight.--Mike Selinker (talk) 12:15, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming:
Note to closing admin: See also Category:People from Sutton (district) added below.
Nominator's rationale: Rename all to eliminate ambiguity. The head article is London Borough of Sutton, and the main settlement in the area in Sutton, London. The list at Sutton (disambiguation) is huge, and there is no way that the borough would meet WP:PRIMARYTOPIC.
The proposed disambiguator "Sutton (district)" follows the model of Category:People from Sutton (district), and is also used for many other boroughs in England. It does create one rather ugly name (Category:Districts of Sutton (district)), so I would be equally happy with the alternative of "Sutton (borough)", as used in e.g. Category:Fylde (borough), Category:Bedford (borough), Category:Darlington (borough), Category:Wirral (borough), Category:Dudley (borough) and many others. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:31, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WikiProject London has been notified. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:37, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support when I first saw the categories, I thought it was about the famous ski resort of "Sutton" (Sutton, Quebec), one of the top ranked ski resorts for glade skiing in Eastern North America. 70.24.251.208 (talk) 06:54, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename using "(borough)", adding Category:People from Sutton (district) to Category:People from Sutton (borough). "Borough" is more specific. "District" is potentially ambiguous with other Suttons, and with the former Sutton Urban District which is now part of the borough. – Fayenatic London 13:52, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Fayenatic's rationale. "Sutton (borough)" is better. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:19, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Strictly speaking it's a London borough not a generic borough. London boroughs are sort-of equivalent to the metropolitan boroughs and non-metropolitan districts found elsewhere in England (see Districts of England). --Redrose64 (talk) 19:14, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I know, but that isn't really the issue here. What we need here is just a disambiguator, not a formal classification. Per WP:PRECISION, over-precision should be avoided. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:01, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename using London Borough of Sutton, or (borough). I think the same should be applied to all London boroughs for clarity. Tim! (talk) 20:13, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename using borough so as to avoid the terrifying prospect of Category:Districts of Sutton (district). CaseyPenk (talk) 07:03, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per Tim's suggestion of London Borough of Sutton. I also support his contention that that format should apply to other boroughs. — Hex (❝?!❞) 07:29, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per Tim's suggestion of London Borough of Sutton. I also support his contention that that format should apply to other boroughs. Like most of these, Sutton used to be a village & is now a borough; it has never been a "district". Johnbod (talk) 19:27, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Questions. There seems to be a clear consensus that the title of these categories should include the word "borough", and I am particularly persuaded by Johnbod's comment that Sutton has never been a district. On a headcount so far, the preference seems to be to adopt Tim's suggestion of using the full phrase "London Borough of Sutton".
    Using the word "borough" leaves us with a choice between "Foo in Bar (borough)" and "Foo in the London Borough of Bar", and I suggest a further possible variant in the form of "Foo in Bar (London borough)".
    Each of these 3 options solves the ambiguity problem, so I am curious as to why some editors want the most verbose option. I can see that since the parent category in each case is "London Borough of Bar", there is a certain consistency in repeating that phrase, but it seems to me to be rather verbose. Category:Buildings and structures in the London Borough of Sutton is quite a mouthful, and it also seems to me to be a little hard to use, because in applying these standardised categories I expect to be able to type "Foo in Bar" and then add any necessary disambiguators. Prefixing "Bar" with "London Borough of" breaks that option.
    So ... please can editors who favour "London Borough" explain a) why they think that the phrase "London Borough" is needed here, and b) whether they would be happy to use it as a disambiguator in the form "Foo in Bar (London borough)". Thanks! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:11, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    You raise interesting points, particularly about the relative ease of finding "Sutton (London borough)" or "London Borough of Sutton". However, we should also consider the internal consistency – and, by extension, predictability – of the category tree. I'm not opposed to "Sutton (London borough)", but then the main article and category also should follow that naming. With regard to length, the difference between the two options is just five characters:
    -- Black Falcon (talk) 00:40, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename in the format "Sutton (London borough)", for precision and to follow the proper format for dabbing. - The Bushranger One ping only 19:14, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • REname but I prefer Black Falcon's solution with Bushranger's as a second best. Since these are late suggestions please relist. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:04, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename from Category:foo in/of Sutton to Category:foo in/of the London Borough of Sutton --Redrose64 (talk) 18:49, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename in the format "Sutton (London borough)". The rationale for this nomination is not that Sutton the borough needs to be distinguished from Sutton the smaller town/settlement as per Category:Bedford (borough) and others. Rather, the rationale is to distinguish the Sutton in London from other Suttons around the world. There is an established hierarchy of "X in London by borough" and there is no ambiguity about Category:Parks and open spaces in Kingston upon Thames or Category:Schools in Westminster. So this group should be a one-off. As to the precise name, 'district' is just wrong, and 'London' needs to be in the name to provide the clarity about where this place is. It is "Sutton (London borough)" in the same way as we have "Georgia (US state)". Sussexonian (talk) 08:35, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually should this be put on hold as all the other categories from the other boroughs (City of Westminster included) are added as well? Simply south...... always punctual, no matter how late for just 6 years 18:45, 10 July 2012 (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:People from Newport, Nebraska[edit]

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: upmerge. The Bushranger One ping only 23:18, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT Town has less than 2,000 inhabitants and only one notable person at present. Very little chance for growth. I recommend it be upmerged to People from Rock County, Nebraska which is currently empty. ...William 23:01, 9 June 2012 (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:People from Bassett, Nebraska[edit]

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: upmerge. The Bushranger One ping only 23:19, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT Town has less than 2,000 inhabitants and only one notable person at present. Very little chance for growth. I recommend it be upmerged to People from Rock County, Nebraska which is currently empty. ...William 22:58, 9 June 2012 (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:1863 establishments in London[edit]

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: upmerge. The Bushranger One ping only 23:19, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This one was somehow omitted from the group nomination at CfD 2012 March 27, when other "YYYY establishments in London" categories were upmerged. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:14, 9 June 2012 (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:1910s disestablishments in the United States[edit]

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. The Bushranger One ping only 23:20, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Currently in the entire series of categories for Category:20th-century disestablishments in the United States there are only a couple of articles with any of them. I recommend that all of the 20th-century disestablishments in the United States categories be upmerged to the 20th-century disestablishments in the United States category. If at some point in the future we get a large number of articles and need to split it out we can. In my opinion we don't need to create all the categories just in case. The categories I suggest merging are:
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:2000s disestablishments in the United States[edit]

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. The Bushranger One ping only 23:22, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Currently in the entire series of categories for Category:21st-century disestablishments in the United States there are only a couple of articles with any of them. I recommend that all of the 21st-century disestablishments in the United States categories be upmerged to the 21st-century disestablishments in the United States category. If at some point in the future we get a large number of articles and need to split it out we can. In my opinion we don't need to create all the categories just in case. The categories I suggest merging are:
  • I don't argue that someday we may need to split them out by year or something but IMO we should create the categories when its necessary, not create would could be around 37, 800 (one for each year and decade in the century) categories for all the years in the century just in case we need them, many of which only have one or 2 articles or are empty. IF we get a year with say 5-10 then fine I say go ahead and create one, at least for the decade the year falls in. Other than that it can be tagged as either the century or the decade until needed. Kumioko (talk) 13:59, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this is being populated and will get a lot more complete. Upmerging them now and downmerging them again afterwards is a useless waste of time and effort. As for the decade cats, a general RfC on these cats is happening at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Categories#RfC on "Years by country" categories, where input is welcome from all sides and on all issues, to see what appraoch is the most useful and informative. Fram (talk) 07:57, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because I support the scheme and because it has potential for growth. I honestly don't know where one would start in terms of populating these categories, so props to anyone who is doing that investigative work. CaseyPenk (talk) 07:05, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all, corresponds to category structure, includes location and sorts and organizes. --Funandtrvl (talk) 20:37, 15 June 2012 (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:ALBC Conservation Priority Breeds[edit]

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. -- Black Falcon (talk) 05:15, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Convert Category:ALBC Conservation Priority Breeds to article American Livestock Breeds Conservancy
Nominator's rationale: --- listify into the article. A category is not justified. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:01, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: This looks very similar to Category:IUCN Red List endangered species. But even if Category:IUCN Red List endangered species did not exist, I would still support this scheme. I see animal preservation as a worthy categorization scheme and being endangered is somewhat defining for an animal. CaseyPenk (talk) 07:21, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - as mentioned above, this is a defining characteristic of the animals in question. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:27, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - A list within the article would be undue weight given that there are almost 190 breeds on the ALBC Conservation Priority List (apparently all of the breeds on the list haven't yet been tagged with this category). The ALBC is the major livestock conservation organization in the US (and one of the largest in the world), and being endangered (and hence on the CPL) is a defining characteristic for many, if not all, of the livestock breeds in this category. Dana boomer (talk) 20:20, 20 June 2012 (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:1820s disestablishments in the United States[edit]

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. These may need to be revisited in some cases once the tree is fully populated, but until then let's not demolish the house while it's being built. The Bushranger One ping only 23:32, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Currently in the entire series of categories for Category:19th-century disestablishments in the United States there are only a couple of articles with any of them. I recommend that all of the 19th-century disestablishments in the United States categories be upmerged to the 19th-century disestablishments in the United States category. If at some point in the future we get a large number of articles and need to split it out we can. In my opinion we don't need to create all the categories just in case. The categories I suggest merging are:
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:Comedians from Ontario[edit]

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: No consensus to UpMerge - jc37 04:56, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category fails to meet either of the criteria that are required for subcategorization by individual Canadian province or U.S. state to be permissible: the individual province or state a comedian comes from has no direct bearing on their career as a comedian, and the parent Category:Canadian comedians is not large enough to need by-province subcategorization for size management purposes. Delete as WP:OCAT by location; as everybody in it is already in either Category:Canadian television comedians or Category:Canadian stand-up comedians, upmerging them back into the parent category is not necessary. Bearcat (talk) 21:25, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The Ontario comedians category is large enough to stand on its own, in my view, and should not be singled out because of its relative underpopulation. I would imagine that you oppose Category:People from Ontario by occupation and its sub-cats, given your "no direct bearing" statement. That's a fair contention, and one that would be suitable to another CfD. CaseyPenk (talk) 07:16, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. The others fit into the "large enough to need by-province subcategorization for size management purposes" criterion, so whether the province has a direct bearing on the occupation or not is irrelevant (and anyway, in some of the cases, e.g. Category:Politicians in Ontario there is a direct bearing.) This one does not fit into either criterion. Bearcat (talk) 16:35, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No other US state or Canadian province has a comparable category, with the sole exception of Quebec — which at least has the defense that as a predominantly French-speaking province in an otherwise mostly English speaking continent, its culture functions quasi-independently of Canadian culture as a whole and does have an inherently distinct flavour to it. There is a very discernible difference between Quebec comedy and any other North American state or province's comedy, but the same cannot be said of Ontario — and there's no discernible reason why Ontario should be the only subnational division in all of North America that has such a category for no more encyclopedic reason than just "because it's possible". And we don't keep categories solely on the basis of their current or potential size in raw numbers, either — if a category is just "categorization for the sake of categorization", and doesn't have a properly encyclopedic rationale behind it, then it can still be deleted even if it has over 1,000 entries. Bearcat (talk) 18:58, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Then why shouldn't there be those other categories created? Once WP:SMALLCAT is exceeded we don't delete categories just because other stuff doesn't exist that should. - The Bushranger One ping only 19:16, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge to Category:Canadian comedians. I don't see why Ontario (of all places) should be singled out in North America for subcategorization of comedians. In any case, it's woefully underpopulated and doesn't currently represent an accurate subdivision of Category:Canadian comedians. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:30, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep subdividing professions by largest sub-national unit is an accepted scheme. This is especially true of a coutry like Canada where the provinces have a high level of autonomy and large amounts of cultural differences. It might not be needed for all Provinces, but it works in this case.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:34, 28 June 2012 (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:Canvey Island football clubs[edit]

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: upmerge. The Bushranger One ping only 23:35, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge to both parents. This category currently contains 2 articles and one sub-category. I don't see any scope for expansion, so this fails WP:SMALLCAT. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:20, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 14:27, 10 June 2012 (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:Telugu films by genre[edit]

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. -- Black Falcon (talk) 23:00, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Created like a list; also if used properly as a category it would be redundant to Category:Telugu-language films as it wouldn't give any precision as to the genre. Either delete or create sub-categories for each specific genre. benzband (talk) 15:27, 9 June 2012 (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:Serer athletes[edit]

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 to match the category tree standard. The Bushranger One ping only 23:35, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename The current title is ambiguous since the term "athlete" can be used to refer to sportspeople in general or specifically to track and field competitors. Although all current members of the category are track and field athletes, I think the wider scope makes most sense because it's a natural subcategory of Category:Sportspeople by ethnicity (track and field athletes are not subcategorized by ethnicity). Pichpich (talk) 12:55, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Hi thanks for notifying me. My concern is "Serer sportspeople" is too general. Many Serers engage in a variety of sports. So it does not narrow it down much for "Serer people by profession", but I am more than happy to go along with whatever the concensus is. Thank again. Best regards. Tamsier (talk) 13:19, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nominator and per convention of Category:Sportspeople by ethnicity. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:00, 16 June 2012 (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:Eastern European sports venue stubs[edit]

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 all. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:42, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There are four regional splits under Category:European sports venue stubs. But there has been a tradition, that once a country fills up, it is taken out of the regional category, and placed under the main European category. The downside is that one of these regional splits (Category:Western European sports venue stubs‎) has now seen enough countries mature that it is now undersized. I propose that we do away with the regional splits altogether, and just upmerge any remaining countries into the European category.
This would mean that the main European category would then have around 700 articles. At the very least, I'd at least like to get rid of the Western category, and upmerge the remaining countries from that category into the European parent. Dawynn (talk) 10:40, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Certainly East/North/West, and it then seems silly to leave South seperate. Bulgaria category is already speediable and Slovakia, Ukraine, Finland and Serbia are very close (about 50 stubs each), with those 5 countries taken out of the picture it'd be closer to 400 articles total, about half of them from the Southern Europe. --Qetuth (talk) 00:22, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, but consider merging all four to Category:Small nation European sports venue stubs‎, so as to not overwhelm the parent category, and encourage categorisation by nation wherever not very small. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:12, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't see a need for an extra category. Current totals will only bring the parent category up to about 670. But two of the countries already have proposals for categories of their own, bringing the total for the parent down to about 550, well shy of the 800 limit currently imposed by WSS. I would expect to see a few more break into categories of their own before we see the parent category flooded. Dawynn (talk) 12:14, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The current scheme is useful given the hundreds of articles within the regional categories. Upmerging to a bloated Category:European sports venue stubs would reduce the scheme's usefulness, in my view. I would support upmerging the Western category alone, but that would form a logical inconsistency. I propose that we wait until all four regions are underpopulated, and then upmerge. CaseyPenk (talk) 07:12, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Categories were created recently for Serbia and Slovakia, meaning that the main European category would have about 510 articles if all four regional splits were upmerged. Our guidelines for stub types – point 6, in particular – suggest that this is an acceptable amount. The next likely country-level splits are Ukraine (50), Finland (46) and Hungary (45), which can be split once they reach 60 articles. -- Black Falcon (talk) 22:50, 13 June 2012 (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:FC Red Bull Salzburg[edit]

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, but purge of the hockey categories, which I've put into a new Category:EC Red Bull Salzburg.--Mike Selinker (talk) 12:20, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I nominated this category to be speedily renamed, which it was, from Category:Red Bull Salzburg to Category:FC Red Bull Salzburg since I thought that the main article was FC Red Bull Salzburg. However, that may not be the case, according to the following explanation:

The category is a master cat for both the FC and the EC (the Red Bull-owned, Salzburg-based hockey club). That's why the "FC" was omitted from the cat name, as it is the cat to contain articles on both both closely affiliated clubs; both FC Red Bull Salzburg and EC Red Bull Salzburg are in the category (as are subcategories) and neither are the single main article for the cat.
— User:Oknazevad 05:10, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure what constitutes common practice in a case like this. Should the title of the 'master' category reflect the name of the 'primary' or older club (see, for example, Category:Paris Saint-Germain F.C. and Category:Paris Saint-Germain Rugby League) or should it omit any sport-specific designation? -- Black Falcon (talk) 05:26, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think the easiest thing would be to move the cat back from whence it came, or split it into two separate categories, one for the hockey club and one for the football club. Just think the idea of having the top category for both refer to only the one is poor categorization. It's not entirely comparable to the PSG example, as rugby is still a form of football, while ice hockey is an entirely different sport. oknazevad (talk) 00:18, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 14:29, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - I believe that separate categories should exist for the football club and the hockey club, and that a new master category should be created as a parent to the sport-specific categories. – PeeJay 23:48, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per User:PeeJay2K3. Though it looks like the EC cat will only have 2 members, I think this would be clearer, and thus more helpful to navigation. - jc37 23:15, 25 July 2012 (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.
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_June_9

Leave a Reply