Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 February 14

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< February 13 February 15 >

February 14[edit]

Category:First Jacobite rising (1689–92)[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. Despite a relisting, opinion remains evenly divided between well-reasoned support and well-reasoned opposition. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:48, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename per main article Jacobite rising of 1689 and move content related to the Williamite War in Ireland away from the nominated categories to Category:Jacobite risings and Category:Battles of the Jacobite risings respectively. One may regard this as a split of the 1689-1692 events into the Jacobite rising of 1689 on the one hand and the Williamite War in Ireland on the other hand, the same split exists in article space. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:54, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- This is the second recent nom on this subject. The problem is that the 1689 article is about Scotland. Category:Jacobite risings should be a container-only for a series of different events. There is a semantic argument as to whether the 1689 etc events were risings or resistance by a Jacobite regime to William III's conquest of Scotland and Ireland. If the target were to be too much related to Williamite War in Ireland the Scottish material would not fit. There should be room for one category on William III's conquest of the British Isles. There is probably a scope for another on its battles, including both the Boyne and Killicrankie. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:35, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I guess for the second category you agree with SmokeyJoe's suggestion to merge? Marcocapelle (talk) 13:06, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support; Removing the 'First' reduces potential confusion, as many writers call the 1715 rising the 'First' (with the '45 being the 'Second'). And the new category name matches the categories for the other risings. I oppose the suggestion to merge into Category:Jacobite risings - it's not the case that there is a sole parent article Jacobite risings - that is little more than a disambiguation page, leading to articles for each of the risings over more than half a century from 1689 to 1745. These are discrete events, separated by intervals of many years, so it makes sense for the battles of each rising to have their own category too, not to be lumped together into a single Category:Battles of the Jacobite risings. Colonies Chris (talk) 15:03, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted from CFD 2018 January 18 to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:10, 14 February 2018 (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:BIG3 coaches[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 player categories to Category:BIG3 players. Sufficient objections about outright deletion (note: not a WP:VOTE, so formal bold !votes not required to object). No current consensus on Category:BIG3 coaches and Category:BIG3 players. Merging the team player categories is common ground for now. —Bagumba (talk) 10:37, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
also:
Nominator's rationale: Participating in the BIG3 competition is non-defining. It is essentially pick-up basketball for retired players. It is at best a footnote in the career of all participants. TM 23:05, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. – Sabbatino (talk) 07:18, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep BIG3 Coaches and BIG3 players, Delete team-specific sub-categories - The league has a TV contract and high-profile names and is continuing for another season (so not a "one-shot"). I don't think team categories are warranted, but categorizing players who are a part of the first professional 3X3 basketball league seems relevant. 3X3 basketball is gaining popularity - added to the 2020 Olympics and has a FIBA-sponsored World Cup - I think we will see more 3X3 leagues crop up as part of this wave. Rikster2 (talk) 14:47, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Can you explain how participation is defining of the biographies? That is the requirement for categorization.--TM 16:29, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
These are basketball players. If they are playing in the first iteration of a notable 3x3 league (a slightly different sport) that is part of their basketball career. It is the same as any number of minor league sport/team categories. These guys are paid, it isn't a hobby. If someone is a professional basketball player/coach then it seems like the relevant teams/leagues he played in are of interest. Rikster2 (talk) 16:35, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define[1] the subject as having" That's the bar here. Can you demonstrate reliable sources that include participation in the BIG3 league as commonly and consistently included?--TM 16:45, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Are you advocating deletion of all minor league team and league categories? They usually aren't the reason a subject has an article but they are relevant to their career. BIG3 has been around for a year, so it is hard to demonstrate that these guys will going forward have this experience referred to consistently. Rikster2 (talk) 16:55, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm asking that we follow the guidelines set forth by Wikipedia. Take Mike Bibby, for example. His basketball reference entry does not include his time in BIG3. If it did, that would indicate that it is a defining characteristic.--TM 17:14, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
basketball-reference doesn't have in its scope to track the BIG3, just like it doesn't show most European leagues or the CBA. And Mike Bibby wouldn't be in the news anymore at all if he didn't play in the BIG3, yet there is no shortage of coverage of his BIG3 exploits in WP:RS. My question about minor leagues goes to underlying philosophy - you heavily edit articles affiliated with the Maine Red Claws - there is not a single player who derives his notability solely or even primarily from their affiliation with the Red Claws, yet you don't seem to apply the same standard to that. I think playing in a minor league that gets pretty extensive coverage is worthy of capturing in a category. Basketball figures are notable for the teams they play for and the leagues they play in. This qualifies. Next thing you will tell me is that Dominique Wilkins shouldn't carry the Boston Celtics player category because his notability was established with the Hawks. Rikster2 (talk) 17:23, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's an excellent strawman argument you've developed, Rikster, but it's not based in policy. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a reason for keeping these categories.--TM 20:19, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Except that it goes to the logic for why team/league categories exist in the first place and why they are applied even in cases where the team/League in question isn’t the primary vehicle for the subject’s notability. Rikster2 (talk) 20:32, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not adefining characteristic to those involved. We do not categoize people by everthing they did. thus we do not have categories for people based on having played high school sports for example.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:11, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
But we do for professional sports, which this would be. Rikster2 (talk) 13:39, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted from CFD 2018 February 6 to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:45, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: Are these persons' BIG3 stints discussed in the article? If it is, then there's a reason for it to be kept, as some WP:RS thought this was important. –HTD 02:24, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In some cases yes and others no, but in no cases is participation a defining characteristic of the players' career.--TM 16:43, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I dunno about "defining". I wouldn't call Allen Iverson's stints in the U.S. national basketball team or even the Detroit Pistons, or that he raps defining characteristics of his career yet those are listed. It's a sound argument that the defining characteristic was his career with the Philadelphia 76ers and pretty much nothing else. If Iverson's article, who is also a BIG3 coach and player, would be categorized solely on his "defining characteristic", we'd only be left with African-American basketball players, Philadelphia 76ers players, Point guards, and Shooting guards, and probably Georgetown Hoyas men's basketball players. –HTD 02:54, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is my point. For a basketball figure their basketball career is what is defining - that is the teams, leagues, competitions, etc. A primary way readers use categories for athletes and coaches is to view all current articles for (as an example) a list of all players for a certain league or team who have articles so that they can browse. All of those categories aren’t defining in their own right for every person, but they all are related to the defining reason the athlete or coach is notable in the first place (their “defining characteristic”). Rikster2 (talk) 12:17, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The problem seems to be that some editors have a different definition of "defining" than how we as editors on Wikipedia are asked to use it in regards to categorization. Per WP:CATDEF, "A central concept used in categorising articles is that of the defining characteristics of a subject of the article. A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define the subject as having—such as nationality or notable profession (in the case of people), type of location or region (in the case of places), etc." The BIG3, as a pick-up basketball league, is not defining in the same way as his NBA career. Per WP:COPDEF, a participation in the BIG3 tournament is not among "the characteristics the person is best known for.", therefore it is non-defining.--TM 19:16, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a “pickup league.” You keep saying it is I assume because you think it will convince others that the league doesn’t matter and therefore the categories should be deleted. It is a professional league with a national TV contract and is on par with minor leagues for which we have categories in pretty much all major sports. Howard the Duck is correct, athletes aren’t defined by every stint with every team or league. However, there is intense interest in Sports to have complete categories for team and league competition because it’s a primary way people use these categories - to browse players or coaches for certain teams/leagues. You must agree because you have no objection to, and in fact have applied, categories having to do with the Maine Red Claws, which is a minor league team for whom on its own isn’t defining for anyone. What is defining for athletes and coaches are the teams and leagues they play or coach in. That’s why these categories exist. If you want to claim that only categories mentioned in every article should be included in athlete and coach biographies, you are in fact proposing a radical shift in the types of categories currently in place for these sports figure in basketball, baseball, hockey, etc. if your point is that the Big 3 doesn’t rate a category as opposed to other minor league franchises, that is a different conversation and where this discussion should be centered IMO. Rikster2 (talk) 01:44, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am far from the only one characterizing the BIG3 as pickup basketball. "“There are no excuses in pickup,” Roger Mason Jr., the president and commissioner of the BIG3 league told us. “It’s not about how you usually play or if you feel like you’re having an off day. Hoop is hoop, just play.” Mason Jr. is running the league that probably best illustrates pickup. The BIG3 is set to debut this summer". "From Pick Up To Prime Time: How To Fix The Big 3 Basketball League". "Will America spend large chunks of its summers watching its former heroes playing pickup ball? NBA.com"--TM 01:05, 22 February 2018 (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:Emerging trends[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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:17, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Bad idea for a category. Everything that could possibly be filed here will eventually cease to be an "emerging trend", because either it will fade out and become passé or it will just normalize into a standard feature of life. For instance, Mobile reporting was certainly a "trend" in 2008 when the article was created and filed here, but a decade later, it's now just part of how journalism and social media work. And it wouldn't be helpful to retain this just because the things filed here were "emerging trends" at some earlier point in their life cycles, either -- because so were Netflix, the compact disc, democracy, body piercing, novels, agriculture, reality television, chautauquas, the alphabet and Christianity, among many other things with no defining relationship to each other. So keeping it on that basis would make it an unbrowsably massive megacategory for every single thing that could claim to have once been a new idea that "emerged" as a "trend". We categorize topics on permanent characteristics, not transient ones. Bearcat (talk) 20:15, 14 February 2018 (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.

17th-century animal births[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 Category:1630 animal births and Category:1680 animal births.
These cats contain one article each; both articles (Byerley Turk and Hansken) are already in Category:17th-century animal births, so need to merge. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:58, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: We have just a few articles (two readily identified at present) on animals born in the 17th century. Categories containing one article are not useful and there is no prospect of filling in all the years from 1601 to 1700 with reasonably populated animal births categories. Greenshed (talk) 06:43, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:SMALLCAT. We don't automatically need year-specific categories just to contain one article each. It's simply not always useful to categorize historical subjects, where we don't have nearly as much content to categorize, as narrowly as we might do for more contemporary topics where we have a lot more articles — the overarching principle is navigability, not "everything has to be categorized exactly the same way even if that impedes navigability", and one-item smallcats aren't helping here. Bearcat (talk) 18:44, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom Delete per Bearcat, with no prejudice against re-creation if and when there are a few more articles available to decade categories. Grutness...wha? 00:53, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • PS - both the candidates should have been subcategories of the proposed merger target. I have moved them there. I also note that both the articles are already in the parent. As such, the proposal is more of a deletion than a merge. Grutness...wha? 00:56, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. In addition I guess if it could be useful to nominate the target for renaming to Category:17th-century animals, together with its siblings. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:22, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I support Marcocapelle's view. It isn't the birth of these animals which is notable.Rathfelder (talk) 19:26, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- to eliminate more miniscule categories. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:00, 18 February 2018 (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:International sailing classes[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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 21:01, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This definition of sailboat classes from International Sailing Federation/World Sailing is no longer used. All articles populating the category would fit to Category:Classes of World Sailing and Category:Former Classes of the International Sailing Federation (currently for speedy renaming to Category:Former classes of World Sailing).
Category is now only populated by articles with the name International in it. Smartskaft (talk) 00:07, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • question. @Smartskaft: can you post some links which would help editors assess this proposal? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:31, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I might have been misinformed by the Wikipedia article International class. I would say it's unclear if the definition still exist – there are/were three levels of status – Olympic, International, and Recognized. There are nothing mentioned in the regulations anymore (page 48 in present regulations (http://www.sailing.org/tools/documents/2018RegulationsClean-[23578].pdf – the hyperlink don't render correctly), compare to old (2008) regulations: [1]). But, World Sailing still provide the (old) status on class articles, an international class, a recognized class.
However, I believe as a Wikipedia category, only Olympic class would be needed to sort out from the others, as the major feature of being an International class/Recognized class/Class of World Sailing is the ability to hold a World Championship in the class if it has enough geographical spread (http://www.sailing.org/tools/documents/2018RegulationsClean-[23578].pdf). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smartskaft (talk • contribs)
  • Merge per nom (@Smartskaft). The World Sailing website is spectacularly unhelpful in its use of "status: international", "status: recognised", and "status: <blank>", along with "status: olympic". The only subtype which veririably still exists is "olympic", so the others should simply be categorised as "Classes of World Sailing". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:27, 21 February 2018 (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/2018_February_14&oldid=1079934594"