Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 September 9

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< September 8 September 10 >

September 9[edit]

Category:Political positions of mayors and leaders of cities 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: merge. Good Ol’factory (talk) 19:21, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only five people in this category. Several of these people's political positions are relevant only because of other political offices held or ran for. Kucinich's and Guiliani's are also notable because they ran for President. Palin's notability stems from being Governor and VP candidate rather than small-town. Feinstein and Coleman also served as Senators. Argument that there may be future expansion to this category is invalid as this category has had the same five articles for 4 year pbp 23:44, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge -- I am not sure why the political postions articles shouold not be merged back to the BIO-articles, but while we have them, I do not see why we need more than one category. Category:Political positions of American politicians will do the job very well without a split. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:18, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge of the five articles in this category, 4 of them are on people who are more notable for having been senators or governors than mayors. For example, it is unclear we would have an article on Sarah Palin if she was still serving as mayor of Wasilla, and had not held any higher office or been a candidate for a higher office.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:17, 10 September 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.

Category:Political positions of Vice Presidents of 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. All three articles are already in two subcategories of Category:Political positions of American politicians, therefore a merge is not need per WP:SUBCAT. (NAC) Armbrust The Homunculus 21:37, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Non-notable intersection. Only three pages in category. Two of the pages are about Jefferson and Teddy Roosevelt (who was VP only briefly), these articles focus more on positions taken as President rather than VP. Biden is the only VP who wasn't President yet has an article on his political positions, and one-article categories are untenable. pbp 23:26, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge -- I am not sure why the political postions articles shouold not be merged back to the BIO-articles, but while we have them, I do not see why we need more than one category. Category:Political positions of American politicians will do the job very well without a split. If kept, Sarah Palin ought to be here too. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:20, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I am not even sure the Jefferson article should be in this category at all. It is not really a political positions article. I would note we may have a strong presentist bias with the only one on someone who has not been president being on the current VP.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:18, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- While I voted "merge", I would not object to "delete" if others think there is nothing worth merging. In any event this is a stange category and should not be kept. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:50, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, each of the articles is already in a daughter category of Category:Political positions of American politicians, so I'm not really seeing much distinction at all between delete and merge pbp 21:10, 21 September 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.

Category:New Zealand beekeepers[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. The side-discussion of whether some of the people involved should be categorized as beekeepers in the first place is not especially salient here. (non-admin closure) --erachima talk 18:05, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Category:New Zealand beekeepers to Category:Beekeepers
  • Merge Category:Slovenian beekeepers to Category:Beekeepers
  • Merge Category:Carniolan beekeepers to Category:Beekeepers
  • Merge Category:Ukrainian beekeepers to Category:Beekeepers
  • Nominator's rationale Even with these upmergeres there will only be 98 articles in the general beekeeper category. This is not really enough to justify subdivision by nationality.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:44, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep All - This group of subcategories is very much like any number of category trees for occupation by nationality, many of which have similarly smallish sub-cats. And I've seen any number go thru the process of creating those sub-cats and allocating the articles from the umbrella category. So rather than merging, I would prefer to see the same thing happen with this nascent category tree. Cgingold (talk) 00:53, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now. I think that 98 articles is enough to start sub-dividing this occupation by nationality. At this point, the nominated subcats appear small, but the nom does not identify whether he tried to populate them. If the category was fully broken down by nationality, I'm sure that some of the subcats would be plenty big enough, and before deleting any particularly small ones I'd like to see more evidence of the overall breakdown. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:38, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The categories are well expandable. They should rather be populated than merged. --Eleassar my talk 08:03, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - An additional point that should be highlighted with regard to this particular set of categories is that beekeeping is always very intimately tied to the particular locale where it is taking place: different varieties of bees, different crops being pollinated, different honeys being produced. So it is eminently sensible to break this down on a geographic basis. Cgingold (talk) 08:37, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- I am surpriosed that we have not got an American subcategory. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:21, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is: Category:American beekeepers. For some reason, only some of the subcategories have been nominated here. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:03, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • In fact, the nominator has gone ahead and created a bunch of new subcategories (as I had suggested), which is all to the good as far as I'm concerned. Cgingold (talk) 09:12, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The Ukrainian category is now empty. Since this is a national category, the country of Ukraine needs to have existed in some sense for it to apply. One of the people lived at a time when Ukraine was divided between 15 sub-units of Russia, of which multiple ones extended beyond the boundary of modern Ukraine. There was no Ukraine as a nation in 1840, and no nationals of Ukraine. The other was an article on a Ukrainian president who had been a banker. I could not easily see any mention of beekeeping in the article, but it was clearly not significant to his biography. Both those were in the general category, so it only had at the most 96 articles. However, one was on the god of beekeeping, which should not be put in a category for real people, one was an article on beekeeping, and a few others involved either no mention of beekeeping or only trivial mention of it as a hobby or very short term occupation. I am really not sure the subdivision by nationality is justified.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:39, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • It always makes my skin crawl for the nominator of a category structure for deletion or merger to take it upon himself to prune the categories while the CFD is pending, and then to use the reduced category membership as further support for his nomination. If your removals are on the merit of this one, an entomologist for Christ sake whose article clearly says he engaged in "five intense years of beekeeping" in his study of bees, all of these removals should be reverted as it seems you are using very poor judgment in deciding who belongs. I also suggest someone more familiar with Ukraine should also review this removal (which I had to sift through your contributions to find, as you hadn't linked it above), given that the cited sources are titled such things as "Petro Prokopovich – Ukrainian beekeeper" and "Beekeeping in the Ukraine". postdlf (talk) 21:10, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Most of my removals are without question justified. You site the one most questionable one, but even that person did not mention beekeeping in the lead. Are you going to try and claim that a president of Ukraine who was a banker before his career should be categorized as being a beekeeper. Or that we should so categorize Margaret Stewart or people who the only mention of beekeeping is a short mention as a hobby done near the end of their life without any connection to their notability. As it is I probably left too many people in the category. The category was full of people who were not at all notable for being beekeepers and who were getting way too much category clutter from being so categorized. I still think that Sir Edmund Hillary should be removed from the category. He is not at all notable for having been a beekeeper and this is the type of totally unjustified overcategorization that undermines the category system. People do not need to be categorized for everything they ever did. Anyway, your plans would just leave us with lots of people just sitting in the category. Categorization needs to be removed, and people who are not notable for keeping bees should not be in this category. As it is I probably should have removed more people.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:19, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • "You cite the one most questionable one..." Which just happened to be a random one I checked from your contribution history, which suggests there are others equally questionable. "...even that person did not mention beekeeping in the lead." That's not a requirement. Is that all you are doing in your review here, just checking the lead?

          Please list here all the articles you have removed since listing this CFD, so that the !voters can judge more fairly what the potential contents of the category structure are and whether any (other) articles should be replaced. And I strongly advise you to stop removing more articles while this CFD is pending. postdlf (talk) 21:31, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

          • Having just returned from an appointment with an oral surgeon, I'm really not up to going through all 26 of the articles that have been removed from the category, much less the other 72 articles. So I will simply say that when it comes to the question of removing articles from a category that is right in the midst of a CFD discussion, that should be done only with great restraint. Only articles about which there can be no question that they were wrongly categorized -- not just "questionably" -- should be removed. Everything else should be left alone while the discussion is taking place, so as not to deprive other editors from having full knowledge of the contents of the category, in order to properly evaluate whatever has been proposed. And any articles that were removed which don't meet that strict standard for removal should be promptly restored to the category for the duration of the discussion. Cgingold (talk) 02:45, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There are now only 72 biographical articles in the category. Even at that, I have doubts if Eddie Albert really should be in the category. There is also a person who is notable just for being a super-centenarian, I am not sure he should be categorized as being a beekeeper and a few others. We really need to stop categorizing people by trivial aspects.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:20, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment I am with JPL in seeing problems with this whole structure. It makes sense to to have a Category:Apiologists, which would I presume include people who did notable work in the science of beekeeping, but I question whether anyone is notable solely as a beekeeper. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seyasirt (talk • contribs) 21:55, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Among those who he I have removed were Charles Henry Turner (zoologist) whose article mentions him studying bees, but never mentions him actually keeping bees, and Bill Turnbull, who is not notable for being a beekeeper. I could mention others.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:10, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Per WP:COP#N only those notable for beekeeping ought be categorized; not any ole beekeeper. Some obvious ones have been removed. Remember, categories like this are to be representative not comprehensive per WP:COP#N, otherwise God-forbid the clutter on such like Category:Skateboarders. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:29, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Trout slap to users who are emptying the categories during this CFD, per Cgingold and postdlf. ("Most of my removals are without question justified" is not a convincing defence. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:45, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Trout slap to you for adding people to categories contrary to established guidelines (notably, WP:COP#N). First, whether or not these cats are merged as nomintaed Edmund Hillary is notable as a mountaineer. That he (incidentally) kept bees is not why he's notable. Adding him to both the beekeepers and the New Zealand beekeepers category as you did is not justified. Nowhere does an ongoing CFD freeze use of categories or removal of inappropriate categories. No one was "emptying" the categories as you accuse (no one touched Gerard Martin (apiarist), who IS notable for bees), but merely removing articles improperly categorized - regardless of whether these are merged or not; these folks aren't notable as beekeepers any more as gazillions of people aren't notable as skateboarders, but whose bios aren't cluttered with that TRIVIA. Your accusation and trout slap have been disproven and now the trout's on you.... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:06, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Too late; it already slapped you. In any case, I'm not sure how much you are aware of Hillary's notability within his home country. But really, that's not the issue I was concerned with. I was concerned with the lack of concern and respect for the reasonable requests of other users. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:10, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The attempts to enforce unjustified use of nationality or beekeeper on people who were either clearly not notable as beekeepers or who do not in any way fit a particular nationality just makes no sense. 19th century people can not be Ukrainian by nationality any more than they can be Pakistani by nationality. There was no Ukrainian nation for them to belong to.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:33, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure that that's an accurate representation of how nationality categories always work. For instance, there are several instances where by consensus we have agreed to categorize people as "Israeli" even though they died before 1948. It has also been fairly common to categorize people as "Ukrainian" even though they lived during the time Ukraine was part of the Russian Empire. Good Ol’factory (talk) 18:53, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If the category is bloated by lots of needless and not justified entries, why should people leave these in. That just gives the false impression the category is of a reasonable size to split, when in fact it is not at all of such a size.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:34, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I was not until subdividing that I realized how througly trivial many of the people in the category were in their connection with beekeeping.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:38, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The question here is really should we keep a system where only 2 categories have shown any ability to get above 5 articles?John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:45, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Proper CFD Protocol - This is far from the first time I've found it necessary to address at some length the issue of removal of articles from categories that are the subject of discussion at CFD (most recently about 2 months ago). For reasons that elude my comprehension, even after being given a full, clear explanation some editors dig in their heels and ignore the request that they restore articles they've removed, as though it was some sort of personal affront and merely optional, only to be done at their sole discretion. So I would like to say very plainly that the CFD discussion process really cannot proceed properly when it is preempted in this fashion. To repeat what I said above:
...when it comes to the question of removing articles from a category that is right in the midst of a CFD discussion, that should be done only with great restraint. Only articles about which there can be no question that they were wrongly categorized -- not just "questionably" -- should be removed. Everything else should be left alone while the discussion is taking place, so as not to deprive other editors from having full knowledge of the contents of the category, in order to properly evaluate whatever has been proposed. And any articles that were removed which don't meet that strict standard for removal should be promptly restored to the category for the duration of the discussion.
CFD discussions are not the time or place to insist on exercising one's own personal judgement while ignoring the rights and needs of other editors who are participating in the proceedings. So with that in mind, I would like to make another request for the missing articles to be restored as outlined above: i.e. all articles except for any which clearly and uncontestably were mistakenly categorized because there is no evidence of any connection with the subject. (I am never surprised to find mistakenly categorized items in categories with dozens of articles.) Restoring the articles does not mean that they are all locked in forever, as should be clear from my use of the phrase "duration of the discussion".
I am hopeful that positive results will be forthcoming. Cgingold (talk) 03:17, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wrong categories are added to and removed from articles routinely during CFD's. Editing within guidelines is always appropriate. What is only inappropriate is to delete categories or substitute them to achieve a fait accompli - i.e., to remove all the category from all articles indiscriminately so that the deletion has been achieved by brute force rather than discussion. That is particularly relevant during a MERGE discussion, where the article would not be appropriate in either the current category nor any merger target, because of triviality or other inappropriateness. "Great restraint" has never been the rule; the rule is to be WP:BOLD, and I note that people have acted in accord with such boldness routinely adding articles to categories to "save" them from deletion - which is universally ok'd; the converse is also permitted as CFD is a neutral forum. As for your discourse on "rights and needs of other editors"; Wikipedia is free to edit. If you think some article needs to be categorized here, go for it. If your "personal judgement" goes against Wikipedia's editing guidelines (notably WP:COP#N), well go right ahead.... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:16, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps to promote harmony you should just be considerate of others by not removing articles from categories being discussed once they have asked that you not. There's no rush that I can see. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:09, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment To call anyone who died in 1945 an Israeli is just plain wrong, just as it is wrong to call anyone who died that year a Pakistani. These are nationality categories, not ethnicity categories, and you can not be a national of a nation that does not exist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:56, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • In previous discussions, there has been consensus to treat members of Irgun and Lehi who died before 1948 as "Israeli" in categorization schemes. The reason was that sources printed after the person's death have consistently referred to them as "Israeli". I would think that the same principle would apply to any case where a person is consistently referred to in sources as a particular nationality, even if the nationality strictly speaking didn't exist during the person's life. In determining nationality, we follow the sources; we don't do our own original research. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:00, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, that is a horrible comparison which entirely fails any realistic test. The members of the Irgun and Lehi were people working as part of a military to bring about the nation in question. For a similar analogy to work, you would have to prove our 19th-century person was part of a military group seeking an indepdent nation of Ukraine. You have no such evidence, so you can not apply it. The case you bring up is a special case, that is brought about by multiple factors, with very special reasons. It is a very narrow exception, and does not change the fact that in the 19th-century there was no nation of Ukraine, and we categorize by nationality, which means the polity people were under, not what nationalist 150 years later want to call them.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:07, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's not a horrible example if it represents a consensus that developed. Try to think of it this way: there are at least two senses in which a nationality can "exist". There is "legal" existence at international law, and there is "aspirational" or "self-identification" existence. For instance, someone who lived in the Russian Empire may have been legally a Russian national, but they may have been an aspirational or self-identifying Ukrainian. Irgun and Lehi members were clearly "aspirational" Israelis before the status was achieved in a legal sense. In all cases, we stick to what the sources say, not what users can "figure out" on their own. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:11, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • It is a horrible example, because it is an extreme exemption that should not be used to try and build a rule. You are trying to use the case of people in organized armies fighting clearly for the existence of a country, to justify categorization of people who in no way ever openly supported a country. It is a super exception that should not be what is used to develop generalized policy.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:14, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • I'm not trying to "build a rule" or create anything new. I'm citing it as an example where consensus determined that we could apply a nationality to a person who died before the legal nationality came into existence. I chose it because it's an example of actual consensus based on reliable sources; ergo, it cannot be a horrible example, because what I am advocating is--surprise!--a consensus-based approach based on reliable sources. I'm not building a rule--I am saying we should follow sources and use consensus, which are already foundational to Wikipedia. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:18, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The article on Ukrainians says "Ukrainians became widely accepted only in the 20th century when the land has finally obtained its own statehood in 1918. Since the establishing the Russian control in Ukraine in the second half of the 17th century Ukrainians were better known by their Russian name Little Russians (Malorhosy). On the lands that were not under control of the Russian state until the 20th century (Western Ukraine), Ukrainians were known by their pre-existing name as Ruthenians (Rusyns)." This suggersts that even as an ethnonym it is anachronistic to call Petro Prokopovych a Ukrainian, and even if it was workable, we would have to be willing to categorize a comtemporary of his who was a Tatar or a Moldvin as a Tatar or a Moldvin beekeeper, which I highly doubt we would try. To treat Ukrainian as a workable nationality tag in the early-19th century just plain does not work. When there were manifestations of Ukrainian nationalism in Galicia, in the Austro-Hungarian Empire, not in the Russian Empire, in 1848, 2 years before Petro Prokopovych died, the Poles in the area insisted Ukrainianism was an identity identified by their German overlords to perpetuate their own power. To call Prolopovych anything but an Imperial Russian is anachronistic in the extreme.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:24, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Very impressive research, but this is why we have WP:OR. Instead, have you considered looking at how the sources refer to him? The name of one of the used sources is "Petro Prokopovych: Ukrainian Bee Keeper". I like to follow the sources. I have no objection to him also being referred to as an "Imperial Russian beekeeper", since other sources use that approach. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:28, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • The source seems to be using Ukrainian as a designation of ethnicity, not of nationality. There can be no nationals of Ukraine if there is no nation, and these are nationality categories. He does not belong in this category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:45, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, that's your own supposition that is not necessarily borne out by the facts (have you actually read the article?). He was not ethnically Ukrainian, he was ethnically Russian, as you noted in editing the article. To argue that there can be no nationals without a nation is tautologically true, but it simply shifts the question to "what is a 'nation'?" This is what I was referring to when I brought up the distinction between legal nationality and aspirational or self-identification nationality. It has long been recognised by academics that there are nationalities that exist even though at international law they may not. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:14, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Ethnicity is not the same as ancestry. Just because someone had ancestors who were Russian does not tell us what ethnicity they were. I still do not think it makes sense to keep these categories when it is unlikely any will get above 3 articles, other than US and British.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:31, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now And the “COP” says simply that “people are usually categorised by their name and occupation” ie the person does not have to be notable “in that occupation” to be in an occupation category (that is, if he/she is notable for something else). Hence it is reasonable to class Edmund Hillary as a (NZ) beekeeper as it was his occupation for a significant time, not just (say) a student holiday job. He was also for a time in the Air Force (WWII, navigator of a Catalina flying boat in Fiji and the Solomons) and an ambassador/high commissioner (all with Wiki categories). Do retirees have no occupation? Hugo999 (talk) 02:25, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Then why were people so quick to delete the bus driver category when it primarily held people who spent much of their career as such, including people who were doing this as a career when they became notable. There seems to be a view that some occupations never are notable. When people do nothing of note as beekeepers, especially when other people are noted as beekeepers and have made major contributions to the field, does it make sense to group them in the same category?John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:08, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • You're expecting consistency of results from CFD? This typically only happens for guideline-based proposals, and even then ... Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:53, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Hugo999's comment above is incorrect - WP:COP does connect categorization-by-occupation to notability - in particular it uses the example of "a film actor who holds a law degree should be categorized as a film actor, but not as a lawyer unless his or her legal career was notable in its own right". If categorization by non-notable occupations (e.g. Clint Eastwood "worked at a number of jobs, including lifeguard, paper carrier, grocery clerk, forest firefighter, and golf caddy") became accepted we'd see many more category tags on some articles. DexDor (talk) 06:19, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Although, for what it is worth, that example given is also horrible. Getting a law degree does not equal becoming a lawyer. One also has to pass the bar, and arguably actually take some jobs as lawyers. So the example really ignores the issue. I also think it is a bad example. For example, we do not have articles on most local judges. Yet if said film actor was a judge, even if his position was not at all notable, how would we avoid categorizing him as such. I think what we need to ask was "was this a defining career". If he kept a half-hearted law practice for a year and then went on to Hollywood stardom, I would say that we might not categorize him as a lawyer, but if he spent 26 years as a lawyer drawing up wills and other boring legal documents and never got much notice, I think we still should categorize him as such if he spent so much of his life in the profession.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:52, 30 September 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.

Category:Sportspeople in Columbus, Ohio[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:28, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The conventional name for such categories is Sportspeople from. ...William 20:51, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The intention is for people who actually played in Columbus, not merely anyone who happened to have come from there and then played anywhere else in the world. That's why it has 9 subcategories for players of Columbus-based sports teams, most of whom are probably not "from" Columbus. postdlf (talk) 22:01, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. There are two issues- One that there are people in the category from Columbus that we're discussing now. Two, categorizing Sportspeople in hasn't been done. Chicago, Cincinnati, Milwaukee, Detroit, all cities with multiple pro and or college teams but the categorizing of team players(Who aren't categorized as being from the city they play for unless they are from there) in those cities hasn't been done this way. What I'm doing is bringing this here for discussion, because I'd like to fill up a 'Sportspeople from Columbus, Ohio' category. I have done sportspeoples for Madison WI, Des Moines IA, Ann Arbor MI, Little Rock AR, Tulsa OK, Savannah GA, Birmingham AL, Anchorage AK to name a few. We need to decide what is to be done with this category first. I don't want to fill it up to with well over 100 articles only to need transferring them....William 22:38, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; do not rename these people aren't necessarily "from" Columbus, but merely were on teams based there. There seems to be no other instances of gathering together all the sports teams of a city and creating a category for the players. Does someone playing for Ohio State Buckeyes have much in common with professional minor league baseball players? This is akin to categorizing people by where they work (or ever have worked) which is novel and (IMHO) unwise, as we have enough category clutter and difficulty of navigation as it is. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:33, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Playing for one year on a sport team does not make someone from a place. This category should be deleted. Where these people can be said to be from Columbus, they can be put in that category. From does not mean born there, but is something more than how long some of these people were in the city.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:59, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment and note to admin. I have started a Sportspeople from Columbus category. It will contain any people articles that qualify for that category. Athletes from Columbus, not Athletes who just played there as part of a sports team. If the Sportspeople in category gets deleted, and I'm fine with that, don't delete the Sportspeople from Columbus Ohio that I have now created....William 19:50, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I don't see any arguments addressing the use of this as solely a container category for Columbus-based team members, which is how it was intended. Perhaps a rename might clarify that it is not intended for anyone from Columbus who happened to ever become an athlete elsewhere, but arguments that playing somewhere doesn't make you "from" that place are in any event irrelevant because that's not what this category asserts. postdlf (talk) 15:37, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Well, if we get into use, that is an even bigger mess. When did coaches start being put in "Sportspeople" categories? I thought these were for players. The thing is, we do not have categories like this for any other place, say Category:Sportspeople in Detroit, Michigan, so I see no reason for this special category. I am also less than convinced designating something a container category works. Category:American stage actors is so designated, and still has over 1000 articles directly in it. OK, that may be because the designation has only been in palce for a little less than 2 months, but I see little evidence that many editors are trying to reactify this, and actually have seen a few cases of people added into it since it was so designated.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:00, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Sure, recognized that the Buckeyes play in Columbus by putting Category:Ohio State Buckeyes in Category:Sports in Columbus, Ohio and group individual players with the teams they played for, but there's no need to combine the two schemes because it's not particularly defining for those individual players. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 23:54, 28 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.

Category:People from Karneid[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 17:43, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. Small community with just two entries. ...William 16:27, 9 September 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.

Category:Grain receival points of Western Australia[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: no consensus. (The discussion about deletion/retention may be better served by a new nomination that proposes deletion. When deletion is proposed in the midst of a proposal to rename, the potential consensus gets muddied quite easily.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:27, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Receival is not a word in the English language (vide use by Graincorp WA) receipt or receiving would suffice Crusoe8181 (talk) 12:09, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - As the categories creator I have utilised the terminology ustilised by CBH, not graincorp. It is indeed idiosyncratic usage, and see the sense of the nominated re-naming and suggest it should be a speedy and not get caught in this CFD dark hole. The nominators suggested renaming, and the creators agreement with his suggested re-name requires no further discussion really. sats 12:30, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The larger question about this category is whether it should exist at all. To begin with, I'm having trouble thinking of any analagous categories, either in other countries or for other industries, where towns are categorized in terms of a certain product. Beyond that, I just added another parent cat, Category:Wheatbelt (Western Australia) -- which as near as I can figure, already includes every article in this newer category. So I would like to know what the rationale is for such large-scale redundancy. Cgingold (talk) 13:35, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Listify. The articles in this category (except this) are not about grain receival points - they are articles about towns (in which there is currently a grain receival point). There may be some towns for which being a grain receival point is currently so important that it might be considered a WP:DEFINING characteristic. However, it's not a permanent characteristic (for a town that may exist for centuries). Also, if a "towns containing <industry>" category tree was allowed to flourish ("Towns with a brewery" etc) then large towns could be in dozens of such categories and cities could be in hundreds. These articles about towns shouldn't be under a category about grain any more than they should be under a category about sheep, about iron ore or whatever other product(s) the town has had an involvement with. DexDor (talk) 19:01, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We do not what to categorize towns by all economic activities done there.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:39, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - this was a proposal to re-name - which should have been a speedy, and this is not necessarily categorising towns, nor is it what all economic activities, it is about specific locations within a very specific railway network that tie into the collection of grain, in a region called the wheatbelt - there is no direct correlation with all towns in the wheatbelt, some dont have the points, while some points exist outside of what are called towns... the reason for the creation of the category was to show they collectioin points do not always relate to townsites - western australia towns have existed in most case less than 100 years, and less. So it is a category not about towns but about receival points. sats 11:30, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep at receival as its the common term in use for these facilities but receiving is ok, as per sats these sites arent all within townships, they have an interrelation to rail and road transport in WA, additionally there are grain recieval points outside of the wheatbelt offhand Kewdale, Rockingham, Bunbury which are road transport points as well as rail and export points. As for considerations with other countries this is a significant identifier of the region thats fairly unique to WA, even in the eastern states of australia the grain industry is interdispersed with other farming, none are the sole basis for all development. Gnangarra 10:40, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
noun. Now rare except Australia -- The action of receiving; reception.
Mitch Ames (talk) 12:09, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify then delete -- It is evident that receival is a good Australian English Word. The problem is however that this is a performance category. It is listing towns with a receival point, not articles about receival points: the right way to do that is in List of grain receival points of Western Australia or Grain receival points of Western Australia, not in a category. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:29, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or rename to receiving, for same reasons as Gnan. Hughesdarren (talk) 07:23, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - re the original nomination as it stood - File:Kellerberin grain receival point sign.jpg and also Johnston, J. H. (James Howard) (1979), Aspects of the problem of defining the optimum size and location of grain receival points and sub-terminals and the size of grain terminals in N.S.W, Dept. of Agriculture, Division of Marketing & Economics], retrieved 27 September 2013 - not sure what the fuss is about satusuro 04:31, 27 September 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.

MTV television characters[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:24, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Category:MTV television characters
  • Nominator's rationale characters generally are fictional. If you look at the contents of this category, the vast majority of them are real people who were in reality television shows. They might have taken on something of a false persona there, but they are still real people, and so the title is confusing. It is also essentially a performer by performance category. I don't think we want to classify actors by the TV channel they appeared on.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:26, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. It's both misnamed with relation to its contents, and inappropriate since neither actors nor characters should be categorized by which TV network they happened to appear on anyway. Bearcat (talk) 07:42, 9 September 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_September_9&oldid=1138398893"