Category:Creators and founders of sports and sporting institutions[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.
Nominator's rationale: The existing category and its subcats are woefully longwinded, redundant ("creators and founders", kind of like "fishermen and fish-catchers"?) and most importantly are mix-and-matching two entirely different topics. Category:Sports builders just doesn't make any sense in English, implying venue construction or something, and is too vague otherwise, being a catchall for creators/inventors, boosters and promoters, iconic players, you name it. The very small number of entries are easily moved to proper categories (I've already moved one, and Norman Brookes should go in Category:Sports officials until such time as there is a Category:Tennis officials, and Arden Eddie should be in Category:Minor league baseball executives, I think. There aren't any others there.
Category:Creators of sports should remain in Category:Sports inventors and innovators, and contain the Dwight F. Davis, James Naismith and Tom Wills entries. Category:Founders of sporting institutions should move a step down to Category:Sports occupations (see minor rename CfR below), and contain the Fahad Al-Ahmed Al-Jaber Al-Sabah entry. The two subcats can simply be split in half as subcats of the two resulting cats (not creating one if it is not actually needed - e.g. all of the boxing entries are surely destined for Category:Founders of boxing institutions (or somewhere else more narrow, such as a trainers category or whatever), with no Category:Creators of boxing likely being appropriate, since boxing goes back to antiquity) and at least in the football (soccer) one, several can be removed from any of these categories, as they are simply founders of clubs/squads/teams (I'm sure every fan thinks of their team as "an institution", but that is not what is meant here); there should already be a managers and/or coaches and/or teamowners category for this, and it can be created if it is missing.
I see merit to certain parts of this nomination, but don't understand why the general category should be split into "creators" and "founders", but the boxing and football subcategories not. Debresser (talk) 19:18, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say subcategories shouldn't be split, generally. In the particular cases appearing here, there's no need yet for some categories, e.g. inventors in the field of boxing (if someone writes an article on whoever invented boxing gloves or boxing bits, or whatever, then such a category will be needed). The cat. for founders of boxing institutions is already needed. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 19:18, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I support this nomination. Debresser (talk) 19:30, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support split as described, as long as no unnecessary subcategories are being created. --RL0919 (talk) 00:03, 16 December 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.
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.
Nominator's rationale: Not all entries here are really "occupations" in the strict sense. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 19:30, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep nevertheless to hold on to the intuitive and in the final account correct name. Debresser (talk) 19:16, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? How can it be "correct" to categorize under "occupations" something that is not an occupation, per se? — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 19:20, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
At first glance, "occupation" seems reasonable for the items in this category. Can you point out some examples where you think it doesn't work? --RL0919 (talk) 00:05, 16 December 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.
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.
Nominator's rationale:Delete From the names used on the page it seems that this category should have been added to a different Wiki. Favonian (talk) 11:11, 11 December 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.
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. — ξxplicit 23:17, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. "Footballers" is an archaic term in rugby union. Wikiproject consensus reached here and here. Sahmejil (talk) 07:42, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If you want all of the subcategories renamed, they will need to be tagged and nominated. You might want to delay doing that until you see if this discussion is closed with a consensus to change. Vegaswikian (talk) 09:28, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's rather self-contradictory. :-) Either they should all be listed now or not. I think that it is perfectly fine to discuss the overall issue and come to consensus on what to do with them all without redundantly listing a bunch of duplicative entries here. A putsch to consolidate a bunch of disparately named categories under one standard naming scheme certainly needs such a list, but a proposal to rename a bunch of already consistent categories really doesn't. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 00:21, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support – I think we are tending to use 'Foo players' rather than 'Fooers' anyway, and I agree that mentions of rugby sometimes add 'league' or 'union' but not 'football' these days. I also support the idea of head category renames being rolled out in a speedy way to subcats (and going to cfd if and only if contested). Occuli (talk) 09:36, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. Demanding hours and hours of redundant listing is simply a means (whether intended or not) of discouraging CfD discussions from ever happening. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 00:21, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename - The term "footballer" only means something to certain classes of English speakers and looks like informal jargon or slang to everyone else (arguably it is exactly that, and is at least non-encyclopedic in tone). Further, the term will be confusing to some, for whom "footballer" exclusively means "player of association football a.k.a. soccer", and for whom a rugby [league|union] player is a "rugby [league|union] player". And it is unnecessarily long by 4 characters. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 00:21, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support rename per the wikiproject consensus and more common usage. --RL0919 (talk) 00:07, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose for now. I have no particular interest in the subject, but while this proposal seems at first glance to be good idea, I want to hear from the rugby buffs before making up my mind. I note that this proposal affects squillions of categories used by WikiProject Rugby union, but I can find no trace of any attempt to notify the WP:RU. I have found a recent brief discussion there about the general principle of using "players" rather than "footballers", but I see no evidence that anyone has ever suggested to the project that this might trigger a mass renaming of categories. It might be that tagging the subcats would alert the project, but it seems to me to be only a matter of basic courtesy to directly notify the project, and unless they have had a chnace to contribute to this discussion, I'll oppose the proposed renaming. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 22:30, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Objection withdrawn, since (per a note on my talk page) this does arise from a discussion at the wikiproject. However, it would have been better if the nominator had explicitly notified the project of this CFD. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 14:55, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support rename as players is more common nowadays; footballers has fallen out of general use for rugby union's participants--Bcp67 (talk) 14:17, 19 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Rename per nom, but to avoid confusion I recommend a prompt followup to rename all the sub-categories. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 14:55, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, as players is less confusing to the majority of readers. Also support recommendations from BrownHairedGirl.FruitMonkey (talk) 15:50, 19 December 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.
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.
Nominator's rationale: Eh...the "underground" artist in question is imaginary, I reckon. Drmies (talk) 04:29, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Category tagged for speedy deletion as it is empty. In four days, it will show up in CAT:SD to be deleted. — ξxplicit 07:00, 11 December 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:List of beauty queens from Scandinavia[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. — ξxplicit 23:17, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my argument in the related discussion for Cat:List of beauty queens from the Middle East. The individuals in this category did not participate in a Scandinavia-specific beauty pageant, so grouping them by region hints at some form of original research (or at least original presentation of information). It is better to categorise them by nationality and pageant. –BLACK FALCON(TALK) 03:58, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Occuli, and to be more explicit because contestants are not notable, only winners (arguably) are. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 00:24, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Although these ladies are all very beautifull (I guess), delete per nominator. Debresser (talk) 19:09, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and replace with "Miss Foo winners" categories per Occuli's suggestion. There may be some cases where non-winners are notable, but probably not enough to warrant sub-categories; those can go into Category:Beauty pageant contestants. --RL0919 (talk) 00:18, 16 December 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.
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.
Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 03:52, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to match article title, if that title has been stable. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 00:31, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy rename Although I don't think titles should have so many names in them. Debresser (talk) 19:06, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't we make a speedy criterion, that matching an article's name is a speedy, if that name has been in unchallenged use for over three months. Debresser (talk) 19:07, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to match main article, which appears to have been stable at that name since May 2008. --RL0919 (talk) 00:22, 16 December 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.
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.
Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 03:52, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Depends on how stable the article name is. If WP:NCP were being properly followed, the article would be at Madame Blavatsky, the name under which the subject is best known to the public, and Helena Blavatsky would actually be the third choice. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 00:23, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that Madame Blavatsky would be by far the superior name for the article. Apparently it used to be there and some editors agreed to move it because they thought it violated a rule about honorifics in an article name. I'll keep an eye on it and if it moves renominate it. Good Ol’factory(talk) 09:08, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tentative rename: Rename to match article if its title has been stable. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 00:32, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy rename If stability is a concern here, then somebody please renominate this in another three months. Debresser (talk) 19:05, 13 December 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.
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.
Support Rename to match title of parent article and reduce ambiguity. Alansohn (talk) 03:52, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per both of the above; ample precedent. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 00:25, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nominator. Debresser (talk) 19:04, 13 December 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.
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.
Nominator's rationale:Rename. This is a disambiguation category, not a regular lists category. Propose renaming to match the other topic-specific categories in Category:Disambiguation pages. Good Ol’factory(talk) 01:04, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rename to reflect content of category. Alansohn (talk) 03:53, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nominator. Debresser (talk) 19:04, 13 December 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:Lists of political parties by generic name[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.
Nominator's rationale:Rename. This is a disambiguation category, not a regular lists category. Propose renaming to match the other topic-specific categories in Category:Disambiguation pages. Good Ol’factory(talk) 01:01, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rename to reflect content of category. Alansohn (talk) 03:54, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
comment the article named Liberal Party does not look quite like a disambiguation page. Hmains (talk) 04:09, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: Questionably relevant. It is basically a DAB page, since in many if not most cases there is no connection but name between the entries in the list. Someone with too much time on their hands simply listified it and then violated WP:MOSICONS again and again and again to make it look cute and graphicky. It cites no sources, and has no non-entry content other than a brief intro that smacks of original research/personal opinion (unless the writer of it has investigated every single "Liberal Party" listed to see why they are called that). — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 00:30, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename: They're DAB pages, the presence of one badly listified one not withstanding. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 00:30, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nominator. Debresser (talk) 19:03, 13 December 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.
