Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 December 18

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< December 17 December 19 >

December 18[edit]

Category:Brazilian Brazilian-Jiu-Jitsu practitioners[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 for now, though there seems to be a consensus for a general rename of all similar nationality categories, which can be done with a new nomination. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:58, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Brazilian Brazilian-Jiu-Jitsu practitioners to Category:Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu practitioners from Brazil
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Brazilian Brazilian-Jiu-Jitsu looks like a pretty horrible title for a category. User5802 (talk) 22:24, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Renaming all the other members is definitely what I would like to do. I thought I'd start with this one as a precedent and then move on from there. Have to figure out how to submit all the other members in the category in one posting here. Can someone give me specific advice on how to do that? User5802 (talk) 21:19, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You pipe a link to the original nomination when tagging the other categories. So on the first category you would have {{subst:cfr1|Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu practitioners from Brazil|Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu practitioners by country}} and for each subsequent category you'd tag it as {{subst:cfr1|Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu practitioners from Foo|Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu practitioners by country}}. Otto4711 (talk) 02:26, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose renaming just this category; Support renaming all of the categories in the structure. Alansohn (talk) 16:00, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The mass re name makes more sense to me as it is generally clearer (and this one is a mouthful) --Nate1481 11:14, 27 December 2008 (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:Chinese Jeet Kune Do practitioners[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. Kbdank71 15:43, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Chinese Jeet Kune Do practitioners (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete No need for for this category, the Jeet Kune Do practioners category is sufficient. User5802 (talk) 19:36, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose since this, and the following nomination, would in effect empty Category:Jeet Kune Do practitioners. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:48, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - No affirmative rationale has been given for deleting this. (I note that there are two other sub-cats by nationality that weren't proposed for deletion.) Cgingold (talk) 13:17, 19 December 2008 (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:Jeet Kune Do practitioners by nationality[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. Kbdank71 15:44, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Jeet Kune Do practitioners by nationality (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete Only the Jeet Kune Do Practitioners category is necessary. User5802 (talk) 19:33, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. There are three subcategories, so why is this delete necessary? Vegaswikian (talk) 07:45, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - No affirmative rationale has been given for deletion. It may not be "necessary", strictly speaking, but with 3 sub-cats, this meets my personal minimum threshhold for such categories. I do, however, have serious doubts about a number of other categories for various types of martial arts practitioners by nationality, since some have only one or two sub-cats. Cgingold (talk) 13:22, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Not logical. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:55, 23 December 2008 (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:Martial arts practitioners by type by nationality[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. Kbdank71 15:45, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Martial arts practitioners by type by nationality (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete This category makes no sense and is redundant. See:
Martial arts practitioners by type
Martial arts practitioners by nationality
Martial arts practitioners by type by nationality ! ! !
What is Martial arts practitioners by type by nationality?!?! User5802 (talk) 19:15, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep this is properly named and has correct contents as a parent, following WP category naming for such dual content categories. Hmains (talk) 03:50, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Hmains is quite right. We have hundreds (1000s?) of categories like this, where the sub-cats are sorted by both type and nationality. Just take a closer look and spend a little time with it and you'll see what it's about, User5802. Cgingold (talk) 05:49, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • But why keep a category called "by type by nationality" when there is already a seperate "by type" category and "by nationality" category? I'm not understanding the rationale behind this? User5802 (talk) 06:22, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Categories like this facilitate navigation by displaying both aspects in one place at the same time, allowing easy access in both directions. Some people like that and find it very useful, others may not. It may not be immediately apparent, but if you spend some time cruising around through various categories you will probably start to understand. Cgingold (talk) 13:05, 19 December 2008 (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:English footballers who have played in Scotland[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. Kbdank71 15:39, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:English footballers who have played in Scotland (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete Same reason as on Cat:Scottish footballers who have played in England:, Per discussion. Govvy (talk) 17:51, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Just as informative as any English expat footballer cat page. Mayumashu (talk) 17:57, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because they aren't expats if playing in Scotland, because its part of the same country. пﮟოьεԻ 57 18:09, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    They are English footballers playing outside England, which according to many definitions (including that of the football authorities) makes them ex-pats in another country (meaning is clear from sentence anyway). Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:19, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Except that "English" isn't defined unless a player has had an international call-up (various footballers born in England self-identify as Scottish; some players who self-identify as English have Scotland international caps), and even "Scotland" is dubiously-defined in some cases (English players at Gretna F.C. prior to 2003, for instance; the club was physically located north of the border but played in the English football pyramid). Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:27, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The various definitions of nationality make ex-pat categories a pain no matter what, but in the specific case of Scotland and England the situation is impossibly complex and this category can neither be comprehensive nor indeed even entirely accurate. We shouldn't be constructing false taxonomies through the use of contrived categories. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:24, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't see the need for any of the footballer ex-pat categories, or even think they are entirely correct; but this one is particularly unnecessary, per nom. Peanut4 (talk) 20:10, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, category is clearly informative, as was the one already deleted. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:19, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – Chris Cunningham makes the case very well. Occuli (talk) 20:23, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - completely irrelevant. So what if they made a few appearances North of the Border? - fchd (talk) 20:30, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I think all of these expatriate footballer categories are overcategorisation, but this is particularly nonsensical given that you can't be an expatriate within your own country. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 07:26, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per preecedent of deleted Category:Scottish footballers who have played in England. Nationalities within UK are largely a matter of perception, i.e. POV. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:07, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    So you'd probably also support the deletion of Category:English footballers, Category:Scottish footballers, Category:Welsh footballers and Category:Northern Irish association footballers? --Wulf Isebrand (talk) 14:07, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per precedent, case of over-categorization. Jogurney (talk) 04:38, 23 December 2008 (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:Dungeons & Dragons articles that need to differentiate between fact and fiction[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/withdrawn. Kbdank71 15:47, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Dungeons & Dragons articles that need to differentiate between fact and fiction to Category:D&D articles that need to differentiate between fact and fiction
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Using "D&D" would be more in line with other Dungeons & Dragons-related category names which are used for project maintenance rather than reader use. I'm hoping to create more categories similar to this one soon, and a single naming convention would be good. -Drilnoth (talk) 15:05, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The reason that I say it should be changed to D&D is that there are a lot of already-established categories that use the abbreviation, and which would have to be changed, too, probably being more work. Additionally, all of the Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Work relating to Dungeons & Dragons uses "D&D," such as in Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/D&D articles by quality statistics. In my opinion everything should either use "D&D" or "Dungeons & Dragons," not having both. Anyway, if you want to close this discussion and go to WT:D&D before starting an official proposal, we can do that. -Drilnoth (talk) 18:39, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that they should be uniform, but I have no preference as to which way that goes. If, for example, we have a dozen that go "D&D" and only one that spells out the full name, it would be easier to cut that one down than to bring the rest out. I don't know what the actual ratio is, though. BOZ (talk) 20:11, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The total are at least 29 categories which already use "D&D" and would have to be renamed, as well as numerous non-category pages, such as the Wikipedia v1.0 editorial team pages related to D&D. -Drilnoth (talk) 20:16, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not an issue in discussions. We have bots to do the work. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:54, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay; thanks for mentioning that.
I'd rather have all of the cats use "D&D," for various reasons, although I guess that a change to "Dungeons & Dragons" wouldn't be bad. The change would require a little more non-bot work (there's a couple of in-progress pages that would need a lot of updates if we use "Dungeons & Dragons"), and I feel like "D&D" is already pretty well established. Anyways, I guess I'm actually pretty much neutral on the issue. -Drilnoth (talk) 14:11, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: a new discussion has been started in the 2008 December 20 log regarding a different rename based on discussion above. -Drilnoth (talk) 16:45, 21 December 2008 (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:Minor league baseball players by team in Oregon[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 and delete. Neier brings up an excellent point that not everyone knows where a team is based. Personally, if I knew the team name, such as the Peninsula Pilots, I would find it easier to quickly scan through a list of 300 or so rather than have to open up to 50 state subcategories looking for it. The nom is also correct that this is the only state that segregates the players by state. Kbdank71 16:55, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Minor league baseball players by team in Oregon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete Triple intersection: occupation, employer, location. Teams are already sorted by state, and afaict, this is the only player-by-team-in-XYZ cat. Neier (talk) 13:59, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - There is no policy/guideline against the so called "triple intersection", and just because something is the first does not make for a good argument for deleting anything (e.g. if someone goes and creates 49 more of these, then suddenly could it stay?). Categories with "triple intersections" actually help reduce overcat, since remember that overcat applies to both the creation of cats as wells as the number of cats an article is placed in. Here, you reduce the number to one instead of three. Aboutmovies (talk) 08:10, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you assume everyone is familiar with US geography and city names (quick -- what state cat would you find the Category:Peninsula Pilots players ?), then, a per-state categorization scheme might be reasonable. But, Wikipedia has a world-wide audience. Here's something else to try. Imagine if Category:Footballers in England by club was arranged by region or county. Would you expect most readers of WP to be able to find the Blackburn Rovers players without checking each sub-cat until they hit the right one?? Overcat is when unnecessary minutiae is categorized; not when a sub-cat is placed in multiple parent categories. Triple-intersections are generally deleted at CFD. 296 sub-categories in Category:Minor league baseball players by team is not unwieldy, and eliminates a strong regionally biased assumption about the knowledge of WP readers when it is not necessary. Neier (talk) 12:55, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Uhh, categorization by state is normal, so unless you are advocating for the deletion of all of those (not to mention country level too since at least in the US geography is not our strong point) your geography argument doesn't hold water. Not to mention comparing U.S. states to English counties doesn't quite work. Though you have roughly the same number of counties as states, states are part of a federal system (i.e. much more like independent countries than English counties) and we have about 6 times as many people (which should roughly translate into 6 times as many articles). Thus in the US, there is far more need for state categorization, than say categorization by first sub-national administrative unit in England or Denmark. Also, I would not expect most readers to find Blackburn Rovers F.C. period, as most people will not be looking for that article or any of the articles in the cat under discussion. Both are of primarily local interest, and in the US state borders are still very much a dividing line to where people here tend to group things by state, thus grouping these by state helps in the navigation. And if someone is really looking and they don't want to have to look through all the cats (and there probably would not be a need for 50 of them since I'm guessing there would not be enough need for them in say Delaware or Alaska and such), they can always use the search function on the left side of the screen. And though triple intersections have incorrectly been deleted at CFD, since the actually guidelines concerning categorization do not prohibit/ban/discourage, the actual community consensus remains those guidelines (CAT, OVERCAT). Until those are changed, the CFD results are simply a case where an individual CFD has disregarded the community consensus (see WP:CONEXCEPT). If the folks who spend way too much time at CFD want to change CAT or OVERCAT to incorporate their personal preference against triple intersections (and why stop at three, two is OK? What about four?) then they need to go through the formal process. Otherwise, past CFD results are basically the OTHERSTUFF exists/doesn't exist argument, instead of "In general, these deletion debates should focus mainly on the nominated article." Or as I like to say, lets make decisions based on policies and guidelines. Aboutmovies (talk) 10:11, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Categorization by state is normal in cases where it is necessary, like the multitude of people from . . . categories. 300 teams is far from overwhelming, and, 50 sub-cats with an average of 6 teams and little or no possibility of expansion is a case of sorting because we can, and doesn't benefit the encyclopedia as a whole. I can't imagine myself looking for the minor league player who played on some team-name-that-was-forgotten-but-remembered-it-was-in-Oregon. And, at least in Japan, people who follow MLB tend to not even know what state those teams play in, let alone the minors. I'd love to hear from people in other countries/continents to see if this is the exception or the rule. At any rate, if this category remains, then Category:Minor league baseball players by team should be subdivided to subcats by state, by league, and by MLB affiliate, because each scheme is an equally logical way to sort the teams; even though I think it all adds an unnecessary level of navigation to the biography tree. Neier (talk) 05:02, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Why would you try at find a player through cats? Seriously, are you suggesting we leave all the minor league player/team cats in one large cat so the reader stumbles upon the large cat with nearly 300 cats and just starts at A and works towards Z until they find the player they are looking for? You use the search function for that. Cats are for grouping similar items and then navigating through them that way. So if you find player X who played on one of the teams in the cat under discussion, then you can find those who also played for that team, or move up and find others who played in Oregon, or move up and find those who played for yet other teams in the US.
          • By the way, sorting by MLB affiliate wouldn't work as teams change affiliates all the time, not all team have affiliates (see the independent Northern League), and some of these player lists are for defunct teams (thus no affiliate) such as the Southern Oregon A's. And though there are only 300 now, I know of several past teams in Oregon that do not yet have these, and would speculate that other teams out there also have not hat player cats created for them.
          • Again, I doubt there would by 50 subcats, and at what number do you say is "overwhelming"? I personally like to keep mainspace cats under 100 (there is no set number, though CAT intimates it would be for cats over 200) so they are actually useful to readers. Aboutmovies (talk) 09:17, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a parent category, not a bottom-level category combing multiple characteristics. With nearly 300 entries, its parent Category:Minor league baseball players by team would benefit by being categorized by state. If I knew the exact article I'm looking for, rummaging through the category structure is not the best way to find it. If the goal is to group similar articles, grouping by state is a productive subgrouping. Alansohn (talk) 16:04, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wouldn't grouping by League be more intuitive? I'm not advocating that by any stretch; but, if the goal is to group similar articles, then why not refine what is already separated between Major League and Minor League, rather than introduce another scheme? Neier (talk) 23:05, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Without the greater scheme of similar state categories, this is next to useless. In fact, I fail to see the utility of sorting by state. Sorting by league makes far more sense. Apparently everyone else mostly agrees with this since this is the only category of its kind. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:20, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Good Ol’factory. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:58, 2 January 2009 (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:Villages in Kollam District[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. Kbdank71 15:30, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Villages in Kollam District to Category:Villages in Kollam district
Nominator's rationale: Merge to Category:Villages in Kollam district per conventions . Creator asking for merging to another category -- Tinu Cherian - 09:24, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support To make them consistent The Bald One White cat 16:48, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'support as Blofeld says, seems to be right per the other cats & naming conventions. Misarxist 08:31, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - couldn't this be speedied as a CAPs fix? Neier (talk) 13:00, 24 December 2008 (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:Canoers[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. Kbdank71 15:29, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Canoers to Category:Canoeists
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Yes, I know that this change would need to be reflected in all the subcategories - consider this something of a test case, and the outcome of this discussion will determine the next step to be taken, if any. Details are listed at Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion#Canoers and canoeists, but - basically - the term canoeists is far more widely used than canoer (the ratio of ghits is about 7 to 1), and the term "canoer" is virtually unknown in quite a number of countries. If goole is anything to go by, both terms are used to a large extent (possibly about equally) in the US and Canada, and the term "canoer" is virtually never met in countries that use UK English (a google search of New Zealand sites, for example, gives 2250 hits for canoeist and a paltry ten hits for canoer - three of which are typos for cancer!) The key article of canoe uses the word canoeist throughout (never mentioning the term canoer), and the article on canoeing uses canoeist as its primary word for someone who uses a canoe (with canoer listed after it as an alternative). A third key article for the category is the fairly unequivocably-titled List of flatwater canoeists by country. If the two terms are, as it seems, interchangeable in US English, but only one is used in UK English, surely it makes more sense to go with the one used in both. If it is a genuine difference between UK and US English and US usage is predominantly for canoer, then the term canoeist should still be used for those subcategories for countries which primarily use UK English and also (as is usual practice on WP, IIRC) for European countries. Grutness...wha? 04:29, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom - sounds sensible. Johnbod (talk) 05:29, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom - a convincing argument. Occuli (talk) 10:42, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom and then nominate subcategories; another very convincing and well-researched case made by Grutness. Good Ol’factory (talk) 11:55, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you :) Grutness...wha?
  • Rename, spent time around canoeists in the UK and never heard the term canoer before. Waacstats (talk) 14:01, 19 December 2008 (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/2008_December_18&oldid=1138389941"