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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:49, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Performer by performance. While these individuals are certainly notable for their careers as broadcasters of hockey games, there is no need to catergorize by specific games or events.
Please don't delete them. Ashbeckjonathan 13:00, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
I suggest dealing with them all together. They are all Performer by performance categories for sports broadcasters, and I can see no reason to have multiple discussions on them. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 13:11, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Very well, I will add them in. I assume Ashbeckjonathan's !vote will stand for all as well. Resolute 13:15, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all I have no problem with a by league category. But per event categories are too much clutter. -DJSasso (talk) 16:29, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete that a person is a sports announcer is worth categorizing if they are notable for it (we should not categorize people who are not notable for that reason, even if done at a professional level, and definetely not if they did it as a part-time job at a college or high school), but there is no reason to categorize that they did so for a psecific event.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:16, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is especially bad that some of these categories will have very high overlap. One person is in 7 if not all 8 of these, but in general MLB all-star game broadcasters will also be World Series broadcasters.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:19, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all -- they are clearly a variety of WP:OC#PERF. We do not allow these because they clutter things up. CAtegories are intneded as a navigation aid, but there will generally only be one broadcaster (or broadcast network) for each sporting series, so that we are liable to end off with a mass of minute categories. Yes, events do sometimes move channel, but does that matter? Peterkingiron (talk) 10:53, 6 April 2013 (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:merge as nominated. Good Ol’factory(talk) 02:20, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Most of the contents of this category were deleted in a series of recent AFDs, leaving only the List of bus routes in London. A one-article category is no help to navigation, and this one won't expand ... so it should be upmerged to both parents. BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 22:45, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Tim! (talk) 05:49, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge at the rate things are going this will be one of only two articles in the UK category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:23, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Beagel (talk) 08:17, 14 April 2013 (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:merge to appropriate Category:XXXX in Spanish sport category or categories, then delete. As noted, this will have to be done manually, so these will be listed at WP:CFDWM for completion. (I have considered this discussion in conjunction with this related discussion.)Good Ol’factory(talk) 00:03, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT, Merge all to the appropriate Category:YYYY in Spanish sportormerge the pre-2009 categories. (I have not listed the merge targets, because this will need to be done manually). These malformed categories are part of a series which should be grouped under Category:Seasons in Spanish rugby union, but that categ doesn't exists and these categs are all a mess. They mostly contain only 1 page, and only one of them exceeds 5 pages; none of the pre-2009 catregs exceeds 3 pages, which I suggest that editors may prefer to delete the pre-2009 categs. In most cases, the category contains only "YYYY FIRA Trophy " (e.g. 1985–87 FIRA Trophy), and those articles already grouped in Category:FIRA tournaments. There is no reasonable prospect that these categories will be expanded in the near future, and this huge number of categories simply impedes navigation by providing a useless extra layer. If editors decide to keep the 2009-onwards categories (or indeed any of the categories), then they will need to fixed and parented under a new Category:Seasons in Spanish rugby union. But do we really need year-country-sport category series for every possible permutation? --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 13:10, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support deletion - over-categorisation, and it is unlikely that these categories will ever be populated beyond their existing contents. --Bcp67 (talk) 10:26, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all to Category:Spanish rugby union or Category:Rugby union in Spain, possibly excluding those sicne 2009. I checked a sample of earlier categories and all the articles were actually about international competitions in which Spain had competed. That is strictly an inadmissible type of category, as it is actually performace (competition) by performer (Spain), but I do not want at this point to advocate tasking that to its logical conclusion of listifying and deleting everything. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:01, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
mantain: there a lot of similar category for british and irish country, and nobody are questioning about them...--Carcamagnu (talk) 06:27, 8 April 2013 (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.
Delete contains only redirects. Tim! (talk) 21:22, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Tim. A category which contains only redirects is of little use for navigation. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 13:07, 6 April 2013 (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:merge to appropriate Category:XXXX in Irish sport categories, then delete. As noted, this will have to be done manually, so these will be listed at WP:CFDWM for completion.Good Ol’factory(talk) 23:58, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT, Merge all to the appropriate Category:YYYY in Irish sport. (I have not listed the merge targets, because this will need to be done manually). These sub-cats of Category:Seasons in Irish rugby union mostly contain only 1 or 2 pages; the biggest is 1998–99, with 4 pages. In most cases, the category contains only "YYYY Home Nations Championship" (e.g. 1895 Home Nations Championship), which is an international tournament in which the Irish team participated. There is no reasonable prospect that these categories will be expanded in the near future, and this huge number of categories simply impedes navigation by providing a useless extra layer. Note that I have not included the categories for 2000 onwards, which are slightly better populated. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 12:41, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Mantain. All teh categories will be expandend with tours, match, national championship and so on... --Carcamagnu (talk) 07:18, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reply. If and when somebody creates dozens of articles on 19th-century rugby matches in Ireland, the category can be recreated. But until that happens, these tiny categories are an impediment to navigation. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 09:35, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. A vast amount of over-categorisation, creating categories that for the most part will never have any content beyond the few articles already in them. --Bcp67 (talk) 10:24, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all for the moment to Category:19th century in Irish rugby union or Category:20th century in Irish rugby union, without prejudice to re-creation if they are going to get some substantive content. At present (like the Spanish series above) they are merely dealing with the participation of Ireland in multi-national competitions, which is performance by performer categorisation (and thus illicit). I observe that some articles have an "in County Dublin" category, based on where a game was played, which also seems inappropriate. When we start getting articles on the domestic league and its clubs, this category series could come back, but not until then. WE do not usally allow a 20th/21st century split, as it is a surrogate for current/past, but I think it may be approipriate here, particularly as we are more likely to get articles on recent events. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:14, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: As there are categories for rugby union by year/season in 14 countries (from Category:2010 in rugby union by country, could the proposer say how many of these categories will be left rather than dribbling them out one country at a time. The countries are Argentina, Australia, England, Scotland, Wales (& Britain), Ireland, France, Italy, Japan, New Zealand, Romania, South Africa & Spain.
While the year 2000 is a nice round figure, for many categories by year/season there are nearly as many articles for years in the previous decade (the 1990s) as for the 2000s and 2010s, and any upmerging here to “years in sport” for the country (here Ireland) should be pre-1990 not pre-2000.
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:WP:CLNT#Categories: "Categories should be on major topics that are likely to be useful to someone reading the article." This category does not seem to be useful, it's topic is not major and some of the articles I looked at do not point to any reliable independent source about left-handedness of these people - or I couldn't find any - for example: Principal Skinner, Roronoa Zoro -- Dalba 14 Farvardin 1392/ 06:34, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's pretty clear this is not a defining characteristic for any of these characters. Mangoe (talk) 14:33, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and BrownHairedGirl. Star767 14:37, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a left handed person I think this is clearly categorization by a trivial trait.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:34, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Listify only those instances where being left-handed is defining. (such as fiction dealing with the loss of a dominant hand, being the left, and discrimination because of that as the right hand remains and normally would be dominant; or where lefthandedness is treated as a sign of the devil, and persecution of lefties (yes I have read fiction based on these premises); though currently there may only be 1 or 2 from the current category) -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 03:00, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd support that, but I don't think there are many characters that fit that description. --NaBUru38 (talk) 18:05, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete trivial for real people, trivial for fake ones. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:06, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I guess Ned Flanders was definitely left-handed. And lefties do seem to have some peculiar pride in their identity/status/whatever. But I would agree that this is not a good category. Maybe a nice article on "left-handedness in fiction" to start with .... --Lquilter (talk) 01:23, 30 April 2013 (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.
Comment Is this so that the category can include Android games featured in the bundles? Samwalton9 (talk) 12:16, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support rename. They are not just indie anymore. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 22:17, 11 April 2013 (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.
Alternate merge both to Category:Wikipedia files of video covers , to ensure that no articles on video covers or their images end up here. (consider the Beatles' Butcher Album, or the Scorpions' Virgin Killer album, covers of which can qualify for separate articles just because of their own notability separate from the actual albums) -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 05:35, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Technically, Category:Video covers would be articles about video covers, yes? So the reverse merger, or the one proposed by the IP above, would seem more apposite. Sandstein 21:41, 9 April 2013 (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.
Female writers who wrote under male or gender-neutral pseudonyms[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:There's broad agreement here that the category cannot stand and that something needs to be done. There were various proposals of listifying, merging, purging, and all sorts of combinations of the three in various orders. For simplicity' sake, I will merge the contents to Category:Pseudonymous writers. Users can then purge out the cases where the name is not a pseudonym. Users can also create a list, if desired, on the specific topic of "female writers who wrote under male or gender-neutral pseudonyms".Good Ol’factory(talk) 23:39, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale really I would like to listify this. It is implying similar concerns when in fact people doing this at present would have very different reasons to do so than did George Elliot. However my experience with the peudonyms categories is that people will insist on keepijng them, even though writing under a peudonym is very common. However the current name is just 1-too long, and 2-grouping things that are only somewhat alike. I also have major issues with the lead. To begin with, the first person in the category Harriet Adams did not publish under a male pseudonym because of concerns about critical reception or being limited to publishing as a male. She did not even publish the Hardy Boys series under the name Franklin W. Dixon on the theory that attributing the works to a male author would appeal better to the target audience, she did so because her father had already established using a male author name for the works. Then we get Marie d'Agoult, who published some of her works under the name Daniel Stern, but the work we actually have an article on was published under her own name. The current situation also allows people to put names like Robin Hobb in the category, although I am unconvinced that is even really gender-neutral, so I took it out. Gender-neutral is not male, so the two should be seperated. I am still thinking that a list would be an improvement, so that the reasons why could be spelled out.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:13, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
nb: there's a start at this here List of works published under a pseudonym but it obviously needs work, and should be refined to not be comprehensive in scope, as such a list might be quite long. Thoughts welcome! --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:12, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
delete Another problem case would be P. D. James, which isn't a pseudonym at all. She simply preferred using initials to spelling out her name, though her full identity was not immediately revealed when her first book was published. I'm not convinced that this is a well-defined or notable category. Mangoe (talk) 19:06, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If P. D. James is a pseudonym, than what isn't? She is using what is clearly her name. I am going to remove her and anyone else who used their actual initials from the caegory. They would fit under Category:Women writers who published under their name in a gender neutral way. This also goes back to Robin Hobb. What about people who actually have gender neutral names? Or what about women with names like Ryan or Adrian (I have known both), that are generally male? If a women named Adrian publishes a book under her actualy name would it qualify for this category?John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:32, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
then there is C. J. Cherryh, where I guess technically this is a pseudonym, but if it was just C. J. Cherry it would not be, so I am not sure this really counts. On the other hand, some authors have published under so many pseudonyms it is not really worth noting that some differ from their gender.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:47, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Then there is Lydia Marie Child who is in this category because Child's first novel, the historical romance Hobomok: A Tale of Early Times, was published anonymously under the gender-neutral pseudonym "an American." I have to say I am not convinced that publishing a work under a true assestion of nationality counts as publishing it under a "pseudonym" at all, it is more like publishing totally anonymously. It is not like "an American" ever came to mean in anyone's mind the author of Child's work.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:51, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Then there is Richmal Crompton who was in this category I guess because technically her name was Richmal Crompton Lambourne, but she was using her full, actual first name in her writting. Her name might be "gender neutral" or even seem to be "male", but that is not a result of any pseudonym on her part.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:56, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge are both acceptable outcomes to me. What I am clear of is the category as is is too broad and unwidely.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:51, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oy! Per JPL's examples above, purge first, then merge the rest up to Category:Pseudonymous writers. Anyone who uses their real name can not be considered as using a pseudonym...--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:24, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
upmerge—it's too tempting for editors to stuff writers in here. J. K. Rowling is in the category for some reason not understood by me. Right from the outset and the publication of the first book it was known that she was a woman (and it's her real name). And as for putting Harriet Adams here, where are the rest of the Stratemeyer Syndicate female authors who wrote for the many series under the syndicate's multiple pseudonyms? Beeswaxcandle (talk) 03:30, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: mentioning female writers who wrote under male or gender-neutral pseudonyms is relevant, but not for a specific category. --NaBUru38 (talk) 18:06, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable, and subjective. Is "Pat" gender-neutral? On Saturday Night Live it is on March 17 the hella it is...Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:08, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the way this category works, if a women whose full name was Pat Logan Miller, wrote under the name Pat Logan, she probably would be put in the category. Even if Pat Logan was her actual birth name, as long as you could say that Pat Logan Miller was her official name when she published some of her works, it would count as a "pen name" to some people who categorize.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:29, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Another example is Mickey Zucker Reichert. Her birth name is Miram S. Zucker. However from the article it is unclear if this is really a pen name. I have known women who have gone by "Mickey". It is unclear, but Reichert might be her married name, and Mickey may well be a nickname she goes by with her family and friends. What next, will we say that Pat Nixon was using a gender-neutral pseudonym?John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:33, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Then there is Craig Rice (author). I guess that looks like a male name, but it is actually her birth-last name, plus what the article descripbes as her "adopted surname". Rice was the surname of her aunt and uncle her raised her. It is possible that legally her name was Georgia Ann Craig Rice, in which case it is hard to see how that was a pseudonym at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:38, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Then Kathrine Taylor, who wrote under Kressmann Taylor was in this category. The problem was her birth name was Katherine Kressmann and Taylor was her married name. This is not a pseudonym, it is just a shortened form of her name.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:47, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Along the same lines, maybe is Carson McCullers, except that is her middle name + her married name. True it might be more gender-neutral than using her first name "Lula", but it is not really a pseudonym at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:53, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am shocked that Harper Lee was not included in this category. I mean, her name is actually Nelle Harper Lee, so she dropped her first name just as much as Mrs. Taylor and Mrs. McCullers (although I guess since Ms. Lee was born with both Harper and Lee it is a little different), and I have actually participated in discussions where people expressed the view that they were at least unsure of Lee's gender. For what it is worth the other 5-notable real people in the list under Harper (name) with Harper as a first name are all male, so it is generally the same as Carson McCullers being the one female in a list of seven-people, so I do not think we have any easy way to determine when the name is or is not "gender neutral".John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:01, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rename then purge. Category:Female writers with a male nom de plume would be a legitimate category. There was a period when women needed to pretend to be men to get published. A head note will be needed to indicate that only those using a specifically male forename can be included. The use of initials, or a surname used as a forename should not be enough. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:21, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"there was a period" means that it does not apply to most of time (and I would question the claim that women ever nedded to pretend to be a man to get published in any setting, some setting yes, all, I would question that claim). However As I think is clear with Harper Lee, it is very hard to say that someone is trying to use a "male" name.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:46, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Purge, keeping only established cases of using male pennames and excluding initials and gender-neutral cases since they are doubtful in their very nature. So, spliting would not be necessary. Then rename Category:Female writers who wrote under male or gender-neutral pseudonyms to Category:Female writers with male pen names, and Category:Male writers who wrote under female pseudonyms to Category:Male writers with female pen names Netrat (talk) 08:53, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The category is definitely a notable and even a defining attribute in many cases. However, I have long felt that the very nature of the category makes it difficult to work as a category, and that a list might be the better approach. Categories work well when they are clear attributes that don't need a lot of explanation. This category is tricky on both the gender and the name question. The name part alone raises questions around pseudonyms, variants of one's own name, non-gendered names, people who used different names at different times. All of these are interesting and relevant points that could be the subject of scholarship, but they are all nuanced and sometimes tricky to explain -- so not a good fit as a category. Any choices we make to try to define the category will necessarily be arbitrary. And gender, while we typically think of it as an easy binary, is not actually all that easy, and folks who use non-gendered or transgendered names are proportionately more likely than others to not fit into the female/male binary. --Lquilter (talk) 13:44, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Listify This type of information would be better presented in a list than a category. The sheer length of the title is an indication of this anyway. This type of concept demands actual text to discuss the described phenomenon, not just a context-less category. SFB 10:06, 27 May 2013 (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.
