Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 January 11



Category:1997 sports in Arizona

 * 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. The editors here agreed that the current format is flawed, but there is no consensus to single out this one category from all the many dozens subcats of Category:Sports in the United States by state and year. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:58, 10 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:1997 sports in Arizona to Category:1997 in sports in Arizona
 * Nominator's rationale: As you can guess, there are 50 x [number of years] of these awkwardly named categories, We can have the discussion on one here, I will not bother to tag them all. The preposition "in" is missing here. A parent category is named Category:1997 in American sports by state, NB the "in". Semantically, it's wrong because what is a "1997 sport"? Is it a sport that was invented in 1997? I know what a "1997 sport[s] event" is, but not this. HandsomeFella (talk) 13:49, 11 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Agree/rename per nom, grammar, these are not sports invented in 1997. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:08, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment while the current name is obviously wrong, the question is whether it's "wrong enough" for any editor to undertake the effort to get them all changed. Nominator is not prepared to that effort, apparently, as they tagged just this one category. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:50, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment: I am prepared to go through that effort, but we will have to agree on a new naming pattern first, or the work might have to be done twice. HandsomeFella (talk) 09:16, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * To avoid misunderstandings, I'm voting support in principle, but only if applied to the whole tree. It doesn't make sense to do it in two steps. Even if this discussion would lead to a rename of one category, there is always a (small) risk that a mass nomination will be declined and the original rename reverted, there is simply no way to avoid that risk. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:30, 18 January 2017 (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.