Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 February 27

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< February 26 February 28 >

February 27[edit]

Category:Maritime woman writers[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) 00:20, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Gendered sub-category that violates the last-rung rule of WP:EGRS. There are no other diffusing siblings these contents can be placed into. This is simply too small a parent to move to dividing by gender at this stage. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:28, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- Women inevitably write from the perspecive of being a woman. Accordingly gender is relevant in this area. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:30, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
True; however, the last-rung rule has typically held sway nonetheless. For example, African-American essayists and African-American women poets were deleted because they violated the last rung rule. We have literally hundreds of "X writers" categories, by subject area, genre, language, etc, but we should not split every last one of these by gender. We should only do so when we can write a solid encyclopedic article on the head, when it is truly an object of unique study, when it's not a triple intersection, and when it does not violate the last rung rule, meaning that there are meaningful diffusing siblings the contents can be placed into - @Bearcat: for his thoughts on this matter.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:51, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • While it's true that women's writing is often distinct from men's in verifiable and encyclopedic ways, it's also true that not every genre of writing is demonstrably impacted by that difference in the same way — and thus, it's not the case that every individual category for writers necessarily needs its own individual subcategory for women in that particular type of writing. (In exactly the same way, the fact that one or more of the writers in this category or its subcategories might be or have been gay does not mean we need a separate category for "LGBT maritime writers" either.) I might feel differently if you could actually write and source a proper article about how "maritime writing by women" was inherently different from "maritime writing by men" — it would have to be specifically about how gender specifically impacts maritime writing itself, not just about gender and writing in general — but as things currently stand, I don't see how this serves any useful purpose. The fact that a person happens to be both a woman writer and a maritime writer can be adequately conveyed by the inclusion of Category:Maritime writers and Category:American women writers as two distinct categories, without necessarily needing a separate "maritime + women" intersection. What's more, even if the category were warranted, its correct name would be women writers, not woman writers. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 22:00, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge to Category:Maritime writers (the one article is already in another sub-cat of Category:Women writers). I am just waiting for Amanda Filipacchi to write an op-ed piece for the NYT where she claims "Wikipedia does not think women maritime writers are real maritime writers". The whole point of the last rung rule is that gendered categories do not require every possible sub-division. Things work differently in acting, where gender is much more controlling. In writing, while gender influences the work created, there are other factors, and so we might as well merge here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:41, 1 March 2014 (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:Agencies[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) 00:19, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge. The parent was rightly deleted at CFD 2008 Jan 16, but promptly recreated by user:Stefanomione without explanation. This is overcategorisation by shared name. The contents are not all agencies in the legal sense, but a mixture of commercial and government bodies with nothing in common except the word. – Fayenatic London 22:31, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- This is covering a multitude of things - goverment agencies, law enforcement agencies, news agencies, advertising agencies. The agencies of British India were regions subject to a particular form of government, where an agent of the Raj supervised a local ruler. These have little in common except that they are supposed ot be representing someone else, which is what an agent does. Agencies by country should be abolished. I would be willing to see the parent kept as a container-only category as Category:Agencies by type with the various types as subcategories. I do not think that many of the things are actually organisations in the normal sense. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:09, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Peterkingiron. Stefanomione (talk) 20:59, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support What separates an agency from a bureau, an administration, a department, a ministry, a society? WP:OC#SHAREDNAME for many of them. Travel agencies and government agencies have nothing to do with them. The FBI has agents but is a "bureau" the police department is a "department", they are both organizations. NASA has no agents, but could be construed as a "space agency", but it is an "administration". Real estate agencies are just companies -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 06:19, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Clearly WP:OC#SHAREDNAME issues. Upmerge to keep these in a proper tree and then some cleanup may be needed to move these into more correct subcategories there. I find the logic that these represent someone to be flawed in the larger sense. I'm not sure that travel agencies really represent anyone other then themselves. They are in business to make money by selling someone else's product for a commission. News agencies gather news and sell it to other news companies. So, the argument that these make sense together seems to be very lacking as a reason to keep. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:05, 6 March 2014 (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:HNK Hajduk Split captains[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) 00:18, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Similar to #Category:HNK Hajduk Split goalkeepers below, this is a clear case of over-catting by an over-enthusiastic fan. GiantSnowman 19:47, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 19:49, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Overcategorization....William 11:52, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Definite Overcategorization used here. JMHamo (talk) 15:25, 4 March 2014 (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:LGBT people from Canada by province or territory[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; manually merge contents to Category:LGBT people from Canada as needed. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:22, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Category:LGBT people from Alberta (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:LGBT people from British Columbia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:LGBT people from Manitoba (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:LGBT people from New Brunswick (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:LGBT people from Newfoundland and Labrador (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:LGBT people from Nova Scotia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:LGBT people from Ontario (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:LGBT people from Quebec (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:LGBT people from Saskatchewan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Per WP:OC#LOCATION, intersections by location (state, province, territory, city, etc.) are permitted in two specific situations: (a) the location is directly relevant to the characteristic it's being intersected with, or (b) the category is extremely large and needs a geographic breakdown for size management reasons. This satisfies neither of those conditions; the Canadian province or territory that an LGBT person is from does not constitute a substantive difference in relation to their LGBTness (no province or territory treats LGBT people any differently in law than any of the others do, for example), and Category:LGBT people from Canada isn't large enough to need an extra drainage pipe (it had less than 60 people left in it after occupational diffusion). So we simply don't need this categorization scheme at all. Note, however, that some articles will need to be upmerged back into Category:LGBT people from Canada, while others won't as they're already in one or more of the occupational subcategories — so the process will need to be performed manually rather than automated. Bearcat (talk) 17:47, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete this intersection isn't relevant and not needed.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:32, 27 February 2014 (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:Princes and princesses of Piombino[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: relisted to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 April 10. The Bushranger One ping only 04:02, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The standard in the Category:Princes and Category:Princesses tree is to split these categories fully by gender, since the title is in almost all cases gendered. This is the only combined category I could find - I think it's just better to split the contents to match the rest of the trees. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:39, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why not split Peter? This is how the whole rest of the tree is dealt with. if we don't split, then we can't really include it in the princes/princess tree, since those trees are fully gender divided.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:11, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment To make things worse, two of the people in Category:Lords of Pimobino did not have that title, they had the title Lady of Piombino, because they were also ruling females. I am not sure what to do here, but we should consider that the Lords category appears to be misnamed. I think as a first step we should rename/merge to Category:Rulers of Piombino and then consider a gender split. At an absolute minimum we need to rename the Lords category because A-it ignores the two people who held the title Lady and B-it is misspelled.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:45, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Looking at these articles, some seem to be relics of a time when Wikipedia did not stress sources as much as it does now. Someone could do good work by finding sources and reworking the wording of some of these articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:50, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I just found someone who was in the category as it should have been spelled. Although it is not clear to me whether Rinaldo Orsini really belongs in the category. Was he the ruling Lord, or just holder of the title by virtue of his wife being Lady of Piombino. The difficulty of answering this question, while if Rinaldo Orsini had been the heir and his wife had been the consort we would have little doubt, is why we generally split these categories by gender. Because up until very recently the role and power of the husband of a monarchy were very different than those of the wife of a monarch.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:54, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Split as nominated, and rename Category:Lords of Pimobino to Category:Lords of Piombino. Principality of Piombino is within Category:Former principalities, and other sub-cats there e.g. Achaea, Antioch and Samos have sub-cats for Princes, and for Princesses. The Lords category fits within Category:Lords of Italy. "Rulers" would fit republics, but let's stick with Princes, Princesses and Lords here, and leave the Ladies in the Lords category. – Fayenatic London 23:17, 9 April 2014 (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.

Categories: Multiple related categories for same reasons[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, upmerge as appropriate. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:45, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Education in Benevento
Category:Universities and colleges in Benevento
Category:Education in Basilicata
Category:Education in Siena
Category:Girls' schools in Italy

  • Delete or upmerge: One entry populated categories which are essentially circular redirects.can be moved to Category:Universities in Italy either delete or upmerge as possible. Quis separabit? 17:07, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge to Category:Universities in Italy; there is no other parenting to be lost, except for the Basilicata one whose member page is already in the local category for buildings. – Fayenatic London 22:34, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge -- obvious. The education one might be more problematic, because it might include articles on schools. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:15, 28 February 2014 (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:Creature anime and manga[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) 00:16, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: What the heck does this category even mean? It just seems to be a collection of anime and manga that have premises that are "we're fighting each other with monsters/other things rather than each other" (eg. Pokémon). —Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:42, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, such a feature of a possible manga/anime plot is not a suitable characteristic by which to define and sort manga/anime. It's too subjective and may not even apply to the entire series. LazyBastardGuy 18:08, 28 February 2014 (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:Association football goalkeepers who have scored[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. I think those in favour of deletion probably have the stronger argument, but I'm not comfortable closing this as "delete" when there is a 5:5 vote count split. Call me a moral coward. This probably warrants further discussion. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:42, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Performer by performance category. We should not categorize on statistical facts about a football player's career - Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:10, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - in some cases, this category's subject is very much the defining feature of a goalkeeper's career. Rogério Ceni and José Luis Chilavert are known as much for their goalscoring as their goalkeeping skills. Jimmy Glass was notable primarily for preventing Carlisle from plummeting out of the Football League, and very little else (apart from a moderately successful spell with Bournemouth). The subject of goalkeepers scoring goals generates a lot of coverage; [1] is just one such thing. David Bingham has also done pretty much nothing of note, apart from score against West Brom in a friendly match. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:44, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is great stuff for an article, and I note we already have a list on same. I'm just not convinced it works as a category, as anyone who has scored even a single goal in 20 years of league play would be added here. While I admit for some people like Rogério Ceni this could be defining, for the vast majority it's not, but I can't think of a non-arbitrary inclusion criteria that would keep Ceni in and the others out. As such, better to focus efforts on maintaining the list.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:52, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, there are quite a lot of goalkeepers whose most notable efforts are their goals, and not their goalkeeping talents. I only picked out a small number of the ones whose biggest claim to fame was their goalscoring prowess (or their only goal). Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 12:40, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – it isn't defining for a goalkeeper to score, although it might well be memorable. Oculi (talk) 23:54, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this is defining, goalkeepers who score in football are notable enough for their own article, and yes, their own category. GiantSnowman 09:34, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Because of his normal position on the field of play, it is unusual for a goalkeeper to score a goal for his own side. It is accordingly a notable characteristic. However, the headnote should be amended to exclude those who have scored own-goals, which is clearly NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:19, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There are *lots* of unusual things that happen in sports. Quarterbacks who scored a touchdown for the other team. Ice hockey goalies who scored a point. Football punters who intercepted a pass. And so on. More importantly, many of the goals these goalies scored were in penalty kicks, and a fair number of these goalies have only scored once or twice. Thus, we don't categorize on what is notable or interesting about people we categorize on what is DEFINING, and I would argue that for the vast majority of these goalkeepers you can't say it's defining - e.g. when someone writes an article about these goalies, they don't say "Well, Jim has been a goalie for 20 years, and 5 years ago he scored a goal from the penalty line" - it just doesn't happen. I accept there are a few goalies to which this applies, and the list seems reasonable, but many many lists do not merit categories because of the DEFINING rule.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:15, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • And as I've pointed out, in many cases (even in those that have only scored one or two goals) it is the defining moment/feature of their career. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:54, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, let's put this to the test. I selected a random sample of goalkeepers from the list, so let's see how wikipedia treats their goal-scoring today:
  • Hampus_Nilsson (not mentioned)
  • Petr_Kouba (mentioned in 2nd line)
  • Iago_Herrerín (not mentioned in lede, mentioned in 2nd para of body)
  • Máximo_Banguera (not mentioned)
  • Luis_Enrique_Delgado (not mentioned)
  • Danilo_Aceval (not mentioned)
  • Andrejs_Piedels (not mentioned)
  • Gastón_Losa (not mentioned)
  • Peter_Schmeichel (mentioned para 2 of lede)
  • Sebastián_Saja (not mentioned in lede, mentioned in para 2 of body)
  • So, out of 10, 6 did not mention the goal-scoring at all, and only 2 mentioned it in the lede.
  • Now, of my random sample, the biggest article is on Peter Schmeichel, so let's see what his bio has to say - here's one from an online encyclopedia about manUD players [2], and it only mentions his goals at the very bottom of his bio - it is not shown as a DEFINING characteristic. In this article the writers have a chance to highlight his career, but totally forget to mention his 11 goals. In this hagiography, his goal is mentioned in the third to last paragraph, in a document that is peppered with oodles of other sporting facts about his impressive accomplishments, so why would we make a category for the goals and not the 20 other things mentioned in this bio?? Simply put, even for this goalkeeper who was obviously a great player, the odd goals he scored are not defining, as he's not introduced this way or regularly referred to this way by reliable sources - see WP:DEFINING. Again, there are an infinite number of interesting sporting statistics, but we should not create categories for them - that's what lists are for.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:33, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your examples are not that good. Hampus Nilsson is a one-sentence superstub who isn't even in the category at present. Petr Kouba is a stub that barely mentions anything of his career, and yet still mentions the goal. Iago Herrerín has a tiny lead that needs expanding anyway, and is devoid of a lot of information. Máximo Banguera has two lines, and barely anything on his club career in prose. Luis Enrique Delgado is a one-line stub. Danilo Aceval is another stub that barely mentions anything of his club career. Andrejs Piedels is a stub that mentions his club career, but only in terms of who he played for. Gastón Losa - another two-liner, another one devoid of any real prose on his playing career. Sebastián Saja also has an inadequate lead that doesn't give a proper reflection of his career, and the goalscoring bits are noted twice in the main body. Peter Schmeichel's article is the only one of any real standard that you've linked to, and that article explictly states "Unusual for a goalkeeper, Schmeichel scored 11 goals during his career, including one for the national team." The things you present here, when actually analysed properly, simply do not support your statement. Your comments about [3], for example, fail WP:OSE. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:43, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • And if one takes the Jimmy Glass article, you'll see that the vast majority of two of the paragraphs are essentially dedicated to one goal, rightly or wrongly. [4][5][6][7] shows sustained notability on that one goal - very much the defining characteristic of his entire career. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:47, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This was a random sample, so it's hardly fair to criticize my methodology nor the results. The point stands - even the stubs can choose what they say about a person, and in the majority of cases, they didn't mention it, or if they did mention it, it was not in the lede but buried in the body. If you want to do more research, google those players I chose above, and map out how many articles about them, in the lede, regularly introduce the player as "X is a goalie who scored 3 goals 5 years ago and now plays with ManU..." - very unlikely. I don't doubt that Jimmy Glass and perhaps others are indeed known for this, and that's great fodder for his article, but that's not enough to make for a DEFINING category, especially one that admits any goalie who has ever scored a single goal. The inclusion criteria is too broad, and will bring in too many people for whom this ISNT defining. That said, I can't think of an inclusion criteria that is not arbitrary that would exclude the random one-offs. You also haven't treated the issue of a goalie whose only goal was in a penalty kick, which seems a totally different case as well. FWIW, I'm totally fine with listifying this, and expanding the list (it seems quite thin compared to the contents of the category)--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:53, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • They can indeed, but most of your listed articles are so devoid of content that you cannot make any judgement on them either way. In many of the cases, there are so few English language sources that aren't stats databases that you can't make any judgement. However, Petr Kouba's retirement announcement mentions the goal, for example, and even specifies the year. I would have absolutely no issue about a note in the category that states "this does not include goalkeepers whose only goal(s) came from penalty kicks", however. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 23:30, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I will admit I don't know much about the sport, but even as unusual as this circumstance might be it doesn't seem to be a defining characteristic of a player's career or them personally as a subject here on Wikipedia. I'm leaning towards delete but I'm not sure; I will admit it seems a rather flimsy excuse to have a category. To me, and I know this is a bit of an outlandish comparison, having this category is a bit like creating Category:People who have been hit in the face with a bird so we can categorize Fabio Lanzoni for his roller coaster accident. (Not opposed to the list, though.) LazyBastardGuy 18:15, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per WP:CLN, not every list has to be matched with a corresponding category. There are some things that are notable enough for a list but not defining enough to count as a valid category; some that are valid categories but not useful or maintainable as lists; some where we should have both; and some where we should have neither. But we do not have a rule that any list that exists automatically gets a corresponding category — sometimes the standards for a valid list and the standards for a valid category overlap but sometimes they don't, and any category that has to be named in the "People who have (insert achievement badge here)" format, no matter how rare an achievement it may be, almost always falls into the "list but not category" class. There's no question a list is absolutely warranted and acceptable here, but a category is an WP:OCAT "performer by performance" violation and should be deleted. Bearcat (talk) 20:56, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We categorize by basic defining characteristics of a person. We do not categorize by specific high points of a persons career. This is much better treated by a list than a category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:55, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - As stated above it is not every day that goalkeepers are known to score goals, it is a very special occurrence that in my opinion deserves a category. There are also many goalkeepers that are known for their goal scoring abilities, such as José Luis Chilavert, Rogério Ceni, René Higuita etc. There is also an article titled List of goalscoring goalkeepers and this category fits in nicely into Category:Association football records and statistics. For those of you arguing that we shouldn't dig just into association football goalkeeper's statistics there are some very similar articles on Wikipedia entitled List of goaltenders who have scored a goal in an NHL game and Category:National Hockey League goaltenders who have scored in a game. Be it a Goalkeeper or Goaltender, for a goalie to score no matter what the sport it is still a defining moment in their career which helps distinguish them from the rest which in my opinion is a very strong reason why this category should not be deleted. Inter&anthro (talk) 17:54, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. When you see an article about a goal keeper who is also a free kick specialist, the wind gets knocked out of the sails for keeping. Now I suppose that we could rename this and change the criteria, but then we have a maintenance nightmare. Since there is a list we should not be losing anything. As for WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, the cases there may be different or if this gets deleted maybe the others need to be considered here. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:11, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note. There appears to be a misplaced comment below that may have been for here. Even if intended there, it really applies here equally well. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:17, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Goalkeepers who score a goal is worthy of categorization, it's not a common occurrence and definitely a unique event. JMHamo (talk) 22:22, 7 March 2014 (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:Vintners[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: rename. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:43, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The usage of Vintner, especially in American English, overlaps with Category:Winemakers, and many of the current contents of this category are in fact winemakers. We should rename for the sake of clarity, and purge all of those who are mostly known for being winemakers, and focus the category on those known for being wine merchants. See previous discussion here Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_June_10#Category:Vintners. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:02, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We can keep Category:Vintners as a disambiguation category instead.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:23, 27 February 2014 (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:Kazakhstani film stubs[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: Speedy delete G7. James086Talk 21:05, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Request by creator TheMightyQuill (talk) 15:01, 27 February 2014 (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:HNK Hajduk Split goalkeepers[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) 00:14, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: One category too far. We don't want to start categorizing players by position by club. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 05:19, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 05:22, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I added the parent to this nomination.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:26, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both originally nominated club cat and its parent. Clear over-categorisation. Similar categories were merged to "Foo F.C. players" several years ago at discussions logged here and I doubt consensus has changed. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:01, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - clear overcat. GiantSnowman 13:39, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Definite over-categorization here. JMHamo (talk) 13:52, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Overcategorized....William 14:28, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would agree if it were about center-backs or left wingers. But, the goal-keepers are not just "a" position. It's so special kind of football players, that they should be treated in a distinct way. The field players may appear at many different positions, while a goal-keeper is almost always - a goal-keeper. Kornjaca (talk) 15:50, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • BTW, don't you find the Category:Association football goalkeepers who have scored‎ more "over-categorization" than categorization by club? Kornjaca (talk) 15:57, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:Other stuff exists is one reason, goalkeeper is just a position (and I'm a goalkeeper myself), and this is overcategorization, whilst the other category you mention is a defining characteristic of many player's careers - this isn't. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:16, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete We don't need to categorize down to this fine level of detail for sports, even if goalies don't change roles that often. FWIW, I've just nominated the other category you just mentioned, I agree it's also overcategorization.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:28, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - everyone here might be interested in the related #Category:HNK Hajduk Split captains. GiantSnowman 19:49, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge back to equivalent players category. Scoring is an unusual characteristic for goalkeepers. A professional club will usually have two or three on staff, to cover for injuries. No comment on captains. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:04, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unusual characteristic? What kind of scoring? From the play, or from a penalty kick? The goal-keepers are often good penalty takers (since they know how it looks like from the opposite side) and it's not that uncommon that a goal-keeper takes a penalty kick (and in penalty shootouts it's almost a rule), so, they are very likely to score. So, would you sub-categorize that category in "goal-keepers who scored from a penalty kick" vs. those who scored from the play? Then, would you categorize "scorers from a penalty kick by position"? On the other hand, when a goal-keeper scores from the play, it's usually - just a pure case, there is nothing like something "characteristic for him". Yes, there're few goalkeepers one could say it's characteristic for them, but, how would you separate them from all the others that have scored by case? Kornjaca (talk) 21:55, 28 February 2014 (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/2014_February_27&oldid=1138399317"