Category:National Basketball Association scoring champions[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.
Delete - not even close to a defining characteristic. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 01:33, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Yet another category for a minor WP:OC#AWARD; well not exactly an award but it is too close for comfort. A goood list exists. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:55, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a strong defining characteristic for players competing in the world's most competitive basketball league and a fact that is distinguishingly featured in the articles for all those winning the title. It may be that people here have no understanding of sports or of how the category system should work, but this lack of understanding of how the real world works is too close for comfort. Alansohn (talk) 02:15, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any evidence that categorizing by award is "how the category system should work" ? DexDor (talk) 05:05, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Peterkingiron etc. DexDor (talk) 05:05, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this category doesn't really fill any need for the reader. There is already a template for scoring leaders, so any reader interested in finding others with that characteristic has that at their fingertips. Right above the categories in fact. Rikster2 (talk) 22:28, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Rikster. Steam5 (talk) 05:17, 3 November 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.
Wikipedia Signpost wikiproject report archives[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.
Procedural note. These categories were nominated separately. I have merged the 7 listings to avoid duplicating the discussion. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 09:49, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry the parent category should have also been nominated for deletion. The Signpost has it's own archive of newsletters, it does not require duplication with the category as well. Mike (talk) 20:56, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:CLS: "categories, lists, and navigation templates are three different ways to group and organize articles. Although they each have their own advantages and disadvantages, each method complements the others."
So in this case, there is another navigation system. That's great, but why demolish this other system? --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 21:41, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please go back and read what you just posted, specifically the part that specifies that this relates to articles. The categories in question about about a news letter, which has its own indexing and archive system. By your logic we should create new categories for AN\I then even though it has an archive already? Mike (talk) 13:10, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You are comparing apples with oranges. ANI is a discussion page, which is archived on a rolling basis by moving content from one page to another. However, Signpost is a set of discrete pages, whose contents remain static.
There is plenty of room on the servers for several complementary forms of navigation, and I still await your argument about why you want to demolish one of them. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 23:29, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all I think, as a practice, CfD nominators shouldn't go into independent WikiProjects and rearrange the way they catalog their files. Especially in this case, it is likely that most readers who go into Signpost archives are the writers and editors of Signpost. If this arrangement makes sense and works for them, why should others who do not make use of these categories delete them? It's ridiculous that because of the votes of 3 or 4 Editors in a CfD nomination, a system of categories that have been created for a certain set of Editors can just be eliminated. I would only support this if the Signpost Editors said that this was a duplicate categorization that was no longer needed by them. I hope that after their publication deadline passes, some writers might come here to dialog about this proposal. LizRead!Talk! 21:43, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Liz and BHG. --Pine✉ 07:14, 3 November 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.
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Currently, this is indicated as relating to the Android operating system. Devices that utilize the android operating system are better classified under either {{mobile-stub}} for phones or {{compu-mobile-stub}} for tablets. Software that runs on the Android operating system is better tagged with {{mobile-software-stub}}, and another tag indicating the classification of the software (see the many under Category:Software stubs). After removing such articles, there are very few stubs that truly relate to the operating system itself. Propose deleting category, and upmerging template to Category:Operating system stubs. Dawynn (talk) 15:20, 29 October 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.
Nominator's rationale: Classic example of a category where we don't need gender parity, per Wikipedia:Cat_gender. Politics has traditionally been the domain of men, and there are many sources and efforts to get more women into politics. As such, we don't need a separate "Men in politics" category tree to match the "Women in politics" existing tree - we should make sure no-one is ghettoized in the "Women in politics" tree however. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:10, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If this category should be deleted then so should Category:Women in politics. There is no rationale for yet another bias on Wikipedia. You either include everyone or you include no one. It should not come down to a guessing game. NorthernThunder (talk) 15:16, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That is not the consensus that has developed to date; there is no obligation to have a matching "male" for every "female" category. For example, we have Category:Male feminists and Category:Male_nurses but no matching female categories. These are really case-by-case, and in this case, the example of politicians (in the guise of heads-of-state) is literally an example in the guidance where parity is not required.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:48, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. Men are not an underrepresented group in politics, nor are they the topic of any actual academic research and social studies literature into the still-evolving phenomenon of their emergence as politicians. Women are. That's the difference. Bearcat (talk) 21:16, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it's just not needed. Much better to categorize based on other factors, such as nationality. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:33, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it quickly! We do not need another gender discrimination scandal like the "Women authors" issue. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:54, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "Women in politics" are an actual topic of real academic social studies research and literature, precisely because it's still a relatively recent phenomenon that virtually didn't exist before the 20th century (and because even today, women still represent maybe 20 per cent of all politicians despite being 50 per cent of all humans.) Like it or not, "women in politics" are still an emerging cultural phenomenon which occasions actual academic study — women in politics are still "women in politics", while men in politics are just "in politics". Bearcat (talk) 21:16, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I did no such thing. "Women in politics" actually garner academic study; "men in politics" do not. That's the point. Bearcat (talk) 04:57, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am not going to weigh into this debate for now. I am just going to point out that les than 3% of all US senators ever have been women. When Lyndon B. Johnson was the leader of the senate there were no women in the Democrat caucus and only one in the Republican. No US state has had more than 3 women serve as senator. At present 20% of the US senate is women, which is an all-time high. Even the present situation is still a male predominance in politics. The first women elected as a state senator in the US was Martha Hughes Cannon in 1896. It was not until 1869 that women were granted the vote as a group anywhere in the US, not everywhere until 1920. France did not grant women the vote until after World War II. Arguably women in monarchical politics always had a slightly larger role, and maybe some of this is too built on politics=what happens in a democracy, But Britain granted women the right to vote about the same time that the US did. Victoria was queen, but Mary Ann Evans could not vote. True, the whole Peggy Eaton affair during the Andrew Jackson administration shows that women could in fact have a role in politics without voting, and there has been quite a bit written that has reassessed what was going on there and the goal of Mrs. Calhoun and the other women who rejected Eaton, so maybe we could also argue that men have a particular way to involve in politics, that having office is not the only political form. So I will avoid any actual position.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:39, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Far too common to merit a category. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:57, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It is pointless to categorise by an attribute shared by the overwhelming majority of people in a field. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 10:19, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above. We can start hacking away at Category:Fooian Christians for all countries with Christian majorities (ditto Fooian Muslims, Israeli Jews, Indian Hindus, and several Buddhist cats) as commonplace as well. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:20, 1 November 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.
Nominator's rationale: Seems redundant and difficult to separate from Category:Systems journals, so I propose to upmerge it to that category. Randykitty (talk) 11:35, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
oppose I think information systems is a special subset of systems.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:49, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but we are not categorizing the field here, but academic journals. All journals currently in this cat seem to be much broader than just "information systems" and find it very difficult to see which journal should go into "systems journals" and which one is so specialized that it belongs in "information systems journals". If I would categorize the journals currently in this cat, they would all go into "systems journals" (but that would be out of process emptying of a cat, I presume). --Randykitty (talk) 17:30, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm withdrawing the nomination. I still think that it doesn't make much sense to decompose categories into too much fine-grained subcats (here a subcat with 3 entries being split off from a cat with 14 entries), but I can use my editing time better than arguing about this. --Randykitty (talk) 18:43, 29 October 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:delete. The written content in the category space is a mess and would require much work to convert to an article. Anyone is free to attempt this, and if a user wants a copy of the text of what was written in the category space, just contact me.Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:36, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary category - it currently contains one sub-category and one article, both of which are in suitable other categories. The term cryology does not appear to be widely used. DexDor (talk) 06:29, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Convert to an article -- International Institute of Refrigeration indicates that this is a specialised area of physics, also called cryophysics. As that article exists and I suspect that the other branches of science do not have equivalents, I should perhaps be voting to merge it to that, if anything. It may be useful to create Cryology as a redirect to it. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:04, 30 October 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:no consensus. As it stands, the category is laughably underpopulated. What follows is just my own opinion, but I believe it makes sense—if a user creates a category, they should try to do their best to appropriately and as fully as possible populate the category. If a user is not willing to put in such work because of the large scope of the category, then perhaps the user should reconsider whether they should be creating the category in the first place. When users create expansive categories such as this and leave them woefully unpopulated, it damages the credibility of the category system and of Wikipedia in general.Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:41, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Is this category really necessary? Wouldn't we have to add every American basketball player who is male? At the least, I think it would make more sense to have subcategories by state: "Men's basketball players from Alabama", "Men's basketball players from Alaska", etc.Hoops gza (talk) 01:11, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but maybe split. Wikipedia should split basketball by gender, since that is how the game is split, but we need to stop treating men as normal, women as special. After the gender war of last April through May we really need to rethink how we name many of these categories. A split by state might well be justified, do we split Category:American women's basketball players by state?John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:41, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the "American basketball players" category is ideally a diffused category into the various state categories anyway. The last thing we want is 50 "Men's basketball players from State X" and 50 corresponding categories for women. That's more categories than the usefulness of the categories warrant in my opinion. (I don't think Category:American women's basketball players needs to exist either by the way. Seems like the term "basketball player" is gender-neutral to me.) Rikster2 (talk) 22:34, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per over categorization. Jrcla2 (talk) 14:32, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Basketball is a gender-segregated sport, where men and women compete separately. Per WP:Cat genderAs most notable organized sporting activities are segregated by gender, sportsperson categories constitute a case where "gender has a specific relation to the topic". As such, sportsperson categories should be split by gender, except in such cases where men and women participate primarily in mixed-gender competition. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 10:10, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I guess these will probably stand as that's how the guideline reads, but as it relates to basketball that's dumb (and flunks the "common sense" guideline as far as I'm concerned). They are all basketball players, tennis players, golfers, etc. I think that guideline should be challenged and if I cared more I'd do it. Rikster2 (talk) 21:38, 5 November 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:delete the NBA categories; no consensus on the MLB MVP categories. Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:45, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - these are more of the sort of awards and honorifics that athletes accumulate in quantity over the course of a career. Not defining of the individual recipients and leads to massive category clutter. If the NBA MVP category is kept it will need to be renamed to Category:Bill Russell NBA Finals Most Valuable Player Award to reflect the award's current name (and which would only make the text blocks at the end of their articles even worse). Jerry Pepsi (talk) 02:16, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest that the nominator tag and add the other categories listed above to this nomination so we can discuss them all. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 02:37, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All These are the most distinguished and defining awards in these sports. Other than the possibility of winning the baseball MVP in both leagues in one's career (Frank Robinson being the only one to date) and the several pitchers who won both the Cy Young and MVP and other variations in other sports, the overwhelming majority of athletes will never win any of these awards, the overwhelming majority who appear at all will only appear once, and a minute number will have won two or more awards. Contrary to Jerry Pepsi's argument, even if you win the same award multiple times you would only appear once in the category and there are anything but "the sort of awards and honorifics that athletes accumulate in quantity over the course of a career". Alansohn (talk) 04:05, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Being selected by a media panel as the MVP of a single exhibition basketball game or the best defensive player in a single season is more distinguished, prestigious and defining than being elected to the Hall of Fame? Being selected once by a journalists' association as MVP of a single season of one of the two current Major League Baseball leagues is a greater honor than elected to Cooperstown? Can you offer some reliable sources that suggest that is a common opinion amongst the players of these sports, let alone common public opinion? And are you seriously arguing that winning the NBA Slam Dunk Contest is a defining characteristic?
They are certainly the sorts of things that athletes accumulate over time. Look at Magic Johnson. He's accumulated 41 categories to date, nearly a dozen of them awards categories. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 06:26, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Cough, choke! You really think that the Category:NBA Slam Dunk Contest champions is among the most distinguished and defining awards in these sports? Maybe an award for performance over an entire season, but for a small, albeit important, set of games is generally not. And for a one day contest, no. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:50, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - people should be categorized by how they achieved notabilty (e.g. Category:American_basketball_players) and not (in most/all cases) by what awards they have received. DexDor (talk) 06:37, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Yest another unnecessary awards category. Listify if necessary first. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:05, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep These are prestigious awards. Have the appropriate WikiProjects been notified? Because if they are deleted, I imagine that they will soon be recreated unless these deletions have their support. LizRead!Talk! 21:12, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Then they will be speedily deleted as recreated content. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 22:44, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, the appropriate WikiProjects have not been notified. I do not know how to do that.Hoops gza (talk) 00:43, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All - These categories don't really fill any need for the reader. There are already templates in place, so any reader interested in finding others with that characteristic has that at their fingertips. Right above the categories in fact. Rikster2 (talk) 22:29, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all - This is ludicrous in my opinion. These are prestigious awards that only a very select few people will ever have. Categories are meant to sort articles. Deleting these would be detrimental to that cause. CRRaysHead90 | #OneMoreGame 05:14, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Deleting these categories would leave the constituent articles "sorted" by dozens of other categories. The rarity of the awards isn't relevant. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 08:34, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's not only relevant, it's extremely relevant. And what you say in the first sentence is true, however none of those would them to be among the exact people that these do. You wouldn't sort people in to Category:American football defensive ends and say that's good enough when they're a defensive tackle, would you? No, you wouldn't because it's not accurate. CRRaysHead90 | #OneMoreGame 19:44, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, the rarity of the award isn't relevant. An award received by 100,000 people may be considered defining of the recipients where an award received by two dozen may not be. As for the comparison to sorting by position, I don't find that persuasive at all. Of course we generally want people categorized as precisely as possible but there are also plenty of instances where categories are not sliced as finely as we possibly could and consensus supports that position. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 20:11, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know about the NBA, but in the MLB, as Isaacl said below, The MVP awards can define a player. CRRaysHead90 | #OneMoreGame 21:51, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of any other concerns, we can all agree that "NBA Slam Dunk champion" is not a defining characteristic though, yes? Jerry Pepsi (talk) 16:54, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep AL and NL MVP categories: These categories are defining for a Major League Baseball player and are not something that gets accumulated by your regular above average player. I don't believe these categories fit the other nominations in this request and should be separated from them. isaacl (talk) 14:08, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all These should be kept, but if you separated the basketball ones out, they would probably be deleted.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:53, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteCategory:NBA Finals MVP Award winners and Category:NBA Slam Dunk Contest champions. I just can't see these remaining per OC#AWARD. Neutral on the others, but probably leaning towards a delete also. All of these are probably best grouped in a list if we really need to navigate between them. I'm not sure that the ability to navigate between these articles solely by name, as we have in a category, really serves any purpose. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:44, 5 November 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.
