Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 May 19

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 18 May 20 >

May 19[edit]

Category:College cheerleaders 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: delete, with quite a few caveats. This one is extremely complicated. There are at least four issues here.
  1. Is cheerleading a sport? By definition, we categorize US college sports players by team if they have achieved notability for playing that sport. There is considerable debate on that, with a recent federal case ruling against the concept. My read from this part of the discussion is that there is no consensus for a requirement to treat college cheerleaders the way we treat college athletes. So the category can be deleted.
  2. Is there overlap with Category:American cheerleaders. There is. That category is for professional cheerleaders. Someone like Anna Watson (cheerleader) is clearly known for her cheering. But she can't get into that category as presently defined.
  3. Are most of these people known for cheering? No, they're not. This isn't the 30th thing you'd list on Dwight D. Eisenhower's resume. This is like a major in college, or a habit of playing poker. Unless a person is known for what they did in an activity, that isn't something we would normally categorize by.
  4. Are the squads properly categorized? Not here. A category is needed to contain the squads by college.

So the overall result of this close is: The category (and its sparsely populated parent, Category:College cheerleaders) will be deleted after (a) Category:American cheerleaders is expanded to include those who are specifically known for cheering, and (b) Category:American college cheerleading squads is created, and the squads moved into it. Samuel L. Jackson, Aaron Spelling, and the Bush family, among others, will have to make do with the dozens of other categories they are in.--Mike Selinker (talk) 12:51, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: WP:OC#TRIVIAL. Bbb23 (talk) 17:23, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There are already categories for "American cheerleaders" - there is no substantive reason for this fork, other than the miraculous coincidence that more than half of the entries are Republican political figures, using non-RS sourcing for a trivial claim (they were cheerleaders at all-male schools). Any actually-notable cheerleaders would fit nicely into the Category:American cheerleaders in the first place. In short, this is trivia at its worst, categorizing people for something no one would actually search for them under. The purpose of any category should be to link articles which have some actual value in the linkage - which is not present here. Thus it is duplicative, trivial, and not supported by the official reasoning for categories, and is used to categorize people for totally non-notable reasons. 'Nuff said?
Categorization of articles must be verifiable. It should be clear from verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories. Use the {{Category unsourced}} template if you find an article in a category that is not shown by sources to be appropriate, or the {{Category relevant?}} template if the article gives no clear indication for inclusion in a category
  • Comment College Cheerleaders are different than other cheerleaders. In pro-football at least, at least if I understand correctly, they have all female cheerleader groups. In many college settings, as can easily be seen from the category, they have cheer teams that have lots of males. In fact, some of these men were in all-male cheer teams at all-male colleges. We generally seperate out those involved in athletic endevors in college as a seperate category, so at first glance this seems like Category:College men's soccer players in the United States.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:14, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) That's an assumption you're making and a gender-based assumption. Perhaps we should have separate categories for male and female cheerleaders, not to mention male college cheerleaders, female college cheerleaders, and co-ed college cheerleaders. All of it is pretty much trivial.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:25, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The college men's soccer category has this heading This category is for men who play or played collegiate soccer; see also Category:College women's soccer players in the United States. This category includes players who have also played in professional leagues such as MLS. Generally, a subcategory of this category follows the pattern "(Common college name) (team name) men's soccer players". However, some colleges have different names for their men's and women's programs, and so those categories are generally written as "(Common college name) (team name) soccer players". Sadly, while soccer is defined "collegiate soccer" is not defined as a specific category. Even more intriguing it is men playing collegiate soccer, not players of men's collegiate soccer (I think the later should actually be what it is defined as, but I digress). There is no clear indication that these men must have played on teams that competed against other schools. This actually gets the whole matter into a more complexed situation than I expected. I expected to say "collegiate cheerleading lacks the history of defined teams and inter-collegiate competition to make it a clear sports example". While this is at some level true (despite the rise of cheerleading as a sport in recent years, although there is definately resistence to this development from multiple angles, and how much it has reached the collegiate as opposed to high school level I do not know). However it is not clear if we really have tight enough rules on other collegiate sports to say this is not analogous. I am not sure on this issue, but I think we have a clear precedent for seperate collegiate categories. I mean we would not want to merge Category:College wrestlers in the United States with "Pro wrestlers". That would be merging two totally unlike things.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:22, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep college cheerleaders are a distinct and different group from other cheerleaders. One issue currently is the category mixes articles on teams and articles on individuals, I am not sure what to do about that. However as long as we categorized people by other collegiate endevors, such as being swimmers, tennis players and so forth, having a cheerleaders cat works. We need to limit the people to those who 1-were cheerleaders while in college. I say this because I know Ernest L. Wilkinson on at least one occasion, and at least allegedly fro the whole season, was Cosmo the Cougar at BYU, and this position is considered to be part of the cheer team (at least at present, then I am not sure if the issue was as clear) but since that was when he was president of BYU I do not think this category should apply to him. 2- the categories should be based on actually references in the article. 3- there is an issue of when people are porperly classed as cheerleaders, and when they were more "yell leaders". How much of an organized team, with stunts, jumps and moves do you need? is it a question of them being called "cheerleaders" or of them fitting some list of what cheerleaders do? I am not sure we have an answer to this, but we should at least contemplate it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:31, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment most categories like Cheerleaders are in general limited to those who did the listed activity in a professional capacity where they are paid for it. Since college cheerleaders, like college athletes, are unpaid, they do not fit the category definitions of the cheerleaders category. This category also connot be merged to Category:American cheerleaders because that category is for Americans who are cheerleaders, while this category can and should include non-Americans who were cheerleaders while students at US located colleges and universities. A survey of the men's soccer category will show quickly that the overlap of these two things is far from 100%.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:34, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know where to post this comment as you've posted so many (long) entries. You still haven't addressed the triviality. Should we categorize college students who were part of a knitting club, waterpersons, some other social club - so many college activities - where do we draw the line?--Bbb23 (talk) 19:41, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment triviality? There are College Cheerleading National Championships. How is this any less trivial than being a college swimmer? There is intercollegiate competition, and being a cheerleader means the person is seen by thousands of fans, it is not like being in a knitting club.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:46, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the category is no different than any of the other categories for college athletes. It cannot be merged with "American Cheerleaders" because that would mean we assume all cheerleaders at American colleges are from America. Cheerleading has been recognized as a sport in many parts of the US, and where it is not recognized as a sport it is still seen as a competitive and athletic activity. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 19:55, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Lawrence Herkimer who I just added to the category is famous because of his developments of the sport while a cheerleader at Southern Methodist University.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:01, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have seperated out the articles on cheerleading teams so they now all come at the front of the category. I am not sure with the current three it is worth giving them their own category. However since the U of Minn Golden Gophers article was not here until I put it here, I may find other not yet categorized organization articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:15, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to American College Cheerleading Squads. Benkenobi18 (talk) 21:43, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Tate Chalk is another person whose college cheering career is the main point of his notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:08, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Benkenobil8 should look at the content of the category first. There are 33 articles on individuals who were cheerleaders. I am in the process of building the category bigger based on intext mentions in articles. There is no reason to repurpose the category when we have plenty of sister cats for other athletic activities.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:24, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The Category:American cheerleaders is defined as "Americans who were professional cheerleaders", whereas the college ones were not only unpaid, but indeed had to pay hefty fees for the privilege, right? So it is not a "fork", and the case for triviality is not made imo. Johnbod (talk) 11:42, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment there may be a few colleges or universities that give cheer scholarships, but I doubt many do, so the "hefty fees for the privalege" would seem to be accurate.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:52, 22 May 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:Terrorist incidents orchestrated by Albanians[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 18:43, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: name violates WP:NPOV Gtwfan52 (talk) 14:05, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Additional Rationale:Why is Category:Terrorist incidents not enough? I searched Wikipedia and there are no other catagories listing terrorism by ethnic group. What next? Catagory:Murder by Poles? Although the word "orchestrated" is not specifically mentioned, it seems that disclusion of that word would be in the spirit of WP:TERRORIST. And I am not expereinced enough to say whether this discussion is better had here or at WP:AfD. Gtwfan52 (talk) 16:49, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We don't have Category:murder by Poles, but we do have Category:Polish_murderers, and in fact a whole rich category tree of Category:Criminals_by_crime_and_nationality. So, I think this one fits. Whether it is 'Albanians' or 'Albanian militant groups' is up for debate; presumably, terrorism is usually undertaken by groups vs individuals, but that isn't always true. --KarlB (talk) 01:35, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If it is sourced, then not. --WhiteWriterspeaks 14:22, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Is this a nomination for renaming or deletion? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:32, 19 May 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:1987 WTA Tour[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 11:36, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The name WTA Tour was not used until the 1988 season. Pichpich (talk) 13:26, 19 May 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:3mm scale[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 11:35, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. This topic category, related to a model railroad scale, contains only main article. IMHO it is redundant by now, and other model scales haven't their own cat (apart 1, that have 7 related articles). Dэя-Бøяg 03:15, 19 May 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_May_19&oldid=1079392702"