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 at nominated. ℯxplicit 05:19, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi and thank you @Marcocapelle: for your attention :-) I preferred that solution, but all its present content may also be moved to Category:Scholars from Kolkata, since, imho all related wikis are already categorized by Indian jurists, judges and so on. Kindly regards and thank you for your helpful and constructive proposal, Roland zh (talk) 21:17, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle: no, I haven't changed my mind. I have done some sampling of the new additions, and those I have checked are not jurists (i.e scholars of the law, or judges); they are practising barristers, who don't belong in a category of jurists. It seems that Roland zh's enthusiasm to retain the category which they created has led them to filing it up with contents which are outside its scope.
I have no idea what Roland zh means by imho all related wikis are already categorized by Indian jurists, judges. Can anyone attempt a translation? --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 22:20, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment - purge -- A jurist is a legal scholar. A lot of the recent additions are merely lawyers, not jurists. The attempt to save it has led to it gaining an irrelevant population. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:47, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Don't purge per my earlier reply to BrownHairedGirl, at least don't do it until a wider discussion has taken place about the scope of the Jurists category. I'm neutral about merging. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:07, 31 May 2017 (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. ℯxplicit 05:19, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:WP:NONDEF and WP:OCAWARD, it categorizes baseball players by a non-defining characteristic. Playing in a minor league all-star game never defines the career of a professional baseball player. It is already listified at All-Star Futures Game all-time rosterTM 13:42, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Unlike regular minor league all-star games, being chosen for the futures game is an important honor and a defining characteristic. Spanneraol (talk) 13:33, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think it's defining of their status as a prospect. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:26, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Being a prospect is not an aspect of notability.--TM 02:35, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't need to be an aspect of notability. just needs to be a defining aspect of thier career. Spanneraol (talk) 02:42, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And their prospect status at the time of the ASFG selection is a defining aspect of their career. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:47, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Plenty of baseball players are defined as prospects who are not notable under Wikipedia's guidelines. Whether a player appears in this minor league all-star game or not is non-defining of their career and their notability.--TM 18:50, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thats true for say the Southern League All-Star Game.. but the Futures Game gets a lot more exposure and only features the top prospects. Spanneraol (talk) 20:31, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, we normally don't categorize by honors. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:12, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Of course a minor league all-star game is not the equivalent of a Major League all-star game. Many players appear in the All-Star Futures Game and never make it to the Major League level nor do they qualify for articles on Wikipedia. That's why this category is non-defining.--TM 23:25, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Many players? Just take a look at the list article... most of the players in it made it to the majors.. and this game is more than JUST a minor league all-star game. Spanneraol (talk) 13:47, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"if the characteristic would not be appropriate to mention in the lead portion of an article, it is probably not defining;" I surveyed 25 random articles and found only one of them listed their Futures Game in the lead.--TM 02:01, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But it wouldn't be inappropriate to add ASFG to the leads of those articles. They're probably too short and in need of expansion. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:38, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Check out Josh Hader for an example of how ASFG demonstrates notability in the lead. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:50, 11 June 2017 (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:withdrawn. ℯxplicit 05:19, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is a clunky and non-standard terminology, which does not describe the topic in question properly. Obviously, choice is central to consumer theory, but it does not exhaust the topic. As an example, the effects of sales taxes on economic welfare are part of consumer theory, but don't fit neatly under consumer choice. JQ (talk) 03:25, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree with JQ that consumer theory encompasses more than consumer choice. The redirect of Consumer theory to Consumer choice should probably be reversed and a stub article created instead. LK (talk) 01:43, 4 June 2017 (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: No longer necessary. These were created as maintenance categories for pages with the {{Respell}} template with unmatched capitalization. The template would automatically adjust casing, so {{respell|pər|fewm}} produced PƏR-fewm and {{respell|PƏR|fewm|'}}pər-FEWM. This is not the case anymore after the recent revision of the template, so the categories are no longer effective. Nardog (talk) 10:43, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Added WikiProject Languages template to talk pages, in order to attract additional comments. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:24, 26 May 2017 (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. ℯxplicit 05:19, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- but please nominate all the rest of the emptied cats, or get them speedily deleted as empty. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:28, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If there is consensus here about this (empty) category, the remainder can be speedily deleted as empty indeed. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:02, 20 May 2017 (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: Unnecessary category as it contains only one article. The competition was only staged once and failed financially, therefore it appears unlikely to happen again, so no scope for category expansion. Jellyman (talk) 07:02, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Cape Town Cup is defunct. This one-item category is useless. Alsee (talk) 11:19, 19 May 2017 (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.
