Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 April 24

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< April 23 April 25 >

April 24[edit]

Category:Bauxite, Arkansas[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 Timrollpickering (talk) 10:21, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category with just one entry. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:36, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - I've tried to populate it and got it up to six articles plus category. It's still thin but I think that's enough to save it. Grutness...wha? 04:51, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep -- That is just about enough. However I am surprised there is enough to populate a place of under 500 people with a people subcat too. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:20, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I expected to vote "delete" until I clicked on the category but it's up to 6 now and my cutoff is 5. RevelationDirect (talk) 23:20, 27 April 2020 (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:Acting theorists[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. bibliomaniac15 18:23, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: After there not being consensus to delete these categories per the recent discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 April 2#Category:Acting theorists, there still seems to be the issue regarding the fact that pages such as Acting theory, Acting theorist, Acting theorists, etc. so not exist, meaning that there is no reference of what the term "Acting theorist" means. However, during the discussion, it seems to somewhat be determined that the subjects of the articles listed in these categories could be considered practitioners of Dramatic theory. So with that being said, I'm proposing these categories be moved to respective "Dramatic theorist" titles so there is a parent article for the main subject of these categories. Steel1943 (talk) 20:23, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all per nom. I thought we had reached a consensus in the previous discussion, though there was one late dissenter. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:23, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Place Clichy (talk) 17:37, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Marcocapelle, Manifestation, and Carlossuarez46: notifying the other participants in the recent discussion. – Fayenatic London 11:00, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, is "theorist" really applicable? We tend to use that term mainly for academics, e.g. Category:Business theorists. In this case "Writers about" seems more appropriate. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:42, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Marcocapelle: Honestly, I don't think the scope of these categories is clear at all, which is why I originally attempted to get them deleted ... and per the discussion linked in my nomination statement, deletion of the base category did not happen. Steel1943 (talk) 21:51, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am still not convinced that "acting" equates with "dramatic". I (perhaps, mis-)understand that the latter involves, in addition to acting, the writing, lighting, directing, music, staging, scenery, props, and all the various things that get put in square brackets in plays as well as the artistic license given over to the producer of the play - rather than the theories of "getting into character", "don't be a stage-hog", and whatnot which are the province of "acting". Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:45, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Carlossuarez46: All of what you just said was the reason why my first nomination for these categories was to get them deleted, which per my nomination statement, was not successful in deleting the base category. Also, these categories probably need pruning, or even wholesale emptying, to determine which articles really need to be in them because ... yes ... it's currently not clear at all per their current members and the current titles of the categories. Steel1943 (talk) 21:51, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose all "Dramatic theorists" normally means "playwriting theorists", which these are not. But there seem to be far too many people in all these categories. Either books or a solid career teaching acting should be expected, not the odd remark in interviews. I can't see, for example, that this is at all defining for William H. Macy, fine actor though he is, or David Mamet, a writer and director. Johnbod (talk) 04:52, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Johnbod: Regarding "But there seem to be far too many people in all these categories." I totally agree with that, which is why I originally proposed these categories be deleted per the discussion linked in the nomination statement. I also agree that the two examples linked above should not be part of these categories at all since it is in no way clear who they should be in these categories. And ... I do believe that these categories need some serious pruning, whether or not the categories are moved. In their current state, most of the members of these categories seem to all have been added to them for an unknown/unclear reason. And ... all of this, especially since my attempting at nominating these categories for deletion did not have consensus in deleting the base category, is why I started this discussion. Regardless of how accurate the members of these categories are and if these categories are going to remain in existence, at the minimum, the categories' titles should have a clear definition of what they is supposed to contain ... which, per my nomination statement, they currently don't. Steel1943 (talk) 21:51, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose renaming per Johnbod, as performance is a different skill from writing (or the other specialities listed by Carlossuarez46) and no doubt calls forth different theories about how to do it well. By all means purge non-defining members, and upmerge any sub-cats that then become small. – Fayenatic London 16:03, 13 May 2020 (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:WBZ[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 subcats, keep parent. – Fayenatic London 06:27, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: We generally don't do categories for specific stations; its only entries are WBZ (AM), WBZ-TV (but, oddly enough, not WBZ-FM, or former WBZ-FM WMJX) — and a subcategory that categorizes performers by performance, which we don't do either. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:02, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Parent/Delete People I was able to get the parent category up to 5 articles and there's not conceptual issue with station specific categories, they just usually can't be populated. The subcat is pure WP:PERFCAT with on air talent that changes stations and markets routinely. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:51, 26 April 2020 (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:Ancient Roman architecture by location[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. bibliomaniac15 19:29, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename to clarify that these are modern locations, analogous to Category:Roman history of modern countries and territories. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:58, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rename but to Category:Ancient Roman buildings and structures by modern country. All the sub-cats are modern countries, except "Africa" and "North Africa" subcats which are unnecessary layer and would be much better merged into the same target, as a follow-up to this. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:28, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • This alternative is a clear improvement over the nomination for two reasons. Buildings and structures is more to the point than architecture, and North Africa is indeed an odd exception in this category tree that could well be removed. For now, because the North African subcat has not been nominated as such, it should be moved to the parent category if this alternative rename is going to be implemented. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:58, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Neither proposal is an improvement, imo. The main issue with the current name is that people will think it takes them to "by city" etc cats, but that's ok. Johnbod (talk) 22:28, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per Johnbod's rationale. Dimadick (talk) 20:03, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Johnbod. There is little ambiguity that we mean modern location here, not ancient location. I would welcome reordering the category in a way that it only contains countries, though. Place Clichy (talk) 17:37, 29 April 2020 (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:United Kingdom business culture[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 Timrollpickering (talk) 10:22, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: upmerge, the content of this category has little to do with Business culture. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:45, 24 April 2020 (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.

Template:2021s-album-stub[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. MER-C 12:29, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Created in error as similar album stubs are by decade ({{2020s-album-stub}}, {{1990s-album-stub}}, etc.). StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 19:36, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Her Pegship (I'm listening) 23:35, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Grutness...wha? 04:51, 25 April 2020 (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:American short story writers of Arab descent[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. I've combed through each article in the cat and all of them are already listed in subcategories of Category:American writers of Arab descent (Lebanese, Syrian, etc.), as well as being in a "short story writer" category. Hence, the category can be deleted. bibliomaniac15 17:56, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Dual upmerge to Category:American short story writers. Small triple intersection that is unlikely to grow and probably violates WP:OCEGRS. User:Namiba 19:28, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: This category is already listed under Category:American short story writers by ethnic or national origin, so there is no need to upmerge it into the parent category. Also, this category parallels existing categories for short story writers of African American, Asian American, Latino, Jewish American, and Native American descent. Aristophanes68 (talk) 05:45, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Marcocapelle: I notice you have not yet voiced an opinion about your desired outcome, despite this comment. Let me kindly invite you to do so as it may help in reaching a decision. Place Clichy (talk) 08:32, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Frankly I am not fully convinced that this nomination solves a problem. With this proposal, the articles will just be moved from one category with issues to another category with the same issues. So I will stick to a weak support per borderline WP:SMALLCAT. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:23, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete another triple intersection (nationality + job + bloodline) the "descent" category is without any objective determination of how much of such descent one must be, how recent that descent must be, what reliable sources provide that the article's subject meets those criteria, and fundamentally, why it is a notable intersection. Do American writers of Arab descent write differently than those who aren't (if so, let's see the sources for that.) Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:52, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Place Clichy (talk) 17:37, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I am also supporting Delete outcome in the spirit of looking for consensus, as I do not think that this expression can be defining for anybody (e.g. Mona Simpson????) and all articles I looked up were already well present in the writers and Arab descent category trees. In most cases this category is a recent addition by Aristophane done without removing any upper-level category, mere deletion is therefore fine. Place Clichy (talk) 08:32, 10 May 2020 (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:American short story writers of Taiwanese descent[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. bibliomaniac15 17:57, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Dual upmerge to Category:American short story writers. Small triple intersection that is unlikely to grow and probably violates WP:OCEGRS. User:Namiba 19:27, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No need to upmerge as it is already a subcat of American short story writers via the ethnic/national origin category. This argument goes for all proposed upmerges below. Aristophanes68 (talk) 05:47, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for the same reason as my comments on Arab descent above. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:52, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Place Clichy (talk) 17:37, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that Merge and Delete come down to the same thing, as the only article is already in the target category. I am therefore also supporting Delete per Carlosuarez46. Place Clichy (talk) 08:37, 10 May 2020 (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:American X of X descent[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. bibliomaniac15 17:59, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Dual upmerge to Category:American dramatists and playwrights. Small triple intersection that is unlikely to grow and probably violates WP:OCEGRS. User:Namiba 19:26, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per my comments on the Arab descent category above. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:53, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all per nominator and per WP:OCEGRS. Massive overcategorisation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:51, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Place Clichy (talk) 17:37, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: why are similar categories for Chinese descent and Japanese descent not also included here? Is it just their size? As someone who works in Asian-American and Arab-American literatures, it is helpful to have a reference category that lists, for instance American poets of X ancestry. Those are the kinds of categories that people write dissertations on. Aristophanes68 (talk) 03:34, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I started by nominating the small categories. When this discussion is closed, I will probably nominated the entire tree per WP:OCEGRS.--User:Namiba 14:31, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Aristophanes68: I accept that there are niche academic uses like that, but I believe that they are too small a niche to justify cluttering articles with these categories. For niche uses like that, researchers would be better advised to use a tool such as WP:Petscan, which they can use to construct their own custom queries. The WP:REFERENCEDESK should have some guidance on how to use categories in this way, tho I fear that the guidance doesn't exist yet. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:47, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WikiData can also be used to get lists of people (for example) with a particular combination of characteristics - and that has the advantage of including people who only have an article in another language wp. DexDor (talk) 12:11, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (upmerging if necessary) any descent categories. DexDor (talk) 12:11, 10 May 2020 (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:Peers nominated by Paddy Ashdown[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 May 13#Category:Peers nominated by Paddy Ashdown

Category:Street trees of New York City[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. bibliomaniac15 19:32, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: not a defining characteristic of these species Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 18:15, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If anything a move to the broader Category:Trees of New York City makes sense. This list is important as New York City is a prime example of a densely populated North American urban forest. I belive there should be tree lists from any city with over 1,000,000 people as trees are an important part of Carbon sequestration. --Wil540 art (talk) 18:22, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Many of the articles (e.g. Ginkgo biloba) make no mention of New York so it's clearly non-defining. WP:RGW. DexDor (talk) 07:01, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Possibly listify, certainly delete category per WP:NONDEF. For example Acer platanoides is a European/Asian tree exported to North America (not just to New York City). Marcocapelle (talk) 21:11, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Possibly listify, certainly delete category -- This is in effect a performance category; at least it would cause the category clutter issue, which is why PERFCATs are banned. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:36, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not defining that NYC has planted them. Just imagine the categories on oaks and elms were every city's trees categorized thus. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:57, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom as non-defining. No objection to creating a list. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:44, 28 April 2020 (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:Military brats[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 Timrollpickering (talk) 10:26, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Being a military brat is a non-defining characteristic. It is almost never "appropriate to mention in the lead portion of an article" as required per WP:NONDEF. User:Namiba 16:42, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom; WP:NONDEF. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:28, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This deals with the not uncommon problem of children born on military bases whose birthplace is otherwise often unexplained. Being brought up in this way may be very significant, and certainly just as defining as the large number of categories of people born in various unremarkable towns. Rathfelder (talk) 07:17, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • No more so than many other things that we don't categorize on: being brought up by a single parent, being brought up poor, being a middle (or oldest, or youngest) child, being a foreign service "brat", etc. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:59, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus can change, so it is entirely proper to have another discussion of it after ten years, but that previous discussion should have been linked by the nominator ... especially since that 2010 discussion was started[1] by User:Namiba, who also nominated it this time. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)
  • Delete per nominator and per Marcocapelle. The previous discussion got a bit heated, and was dominated by a small number of very verbose editors who shed more heat than light, and had little solid evidence.
Yes, the term "military brat" does exist, and the head article documents its usage. The concept is much broader than the American term which is used as the category name, but a renaming (or creation of differently-named subcats for other cultures) would not solve the fundamental problem of the category, which is that fails the tests set out in WP:NONDEF. I checked a random set of ten articles on the first page of the category, and only one the of ten mentioned a military upbringing in the lead section ... and that was Francisco Franco, who is an exceptional case. (Military dictators are a tiny proportion of the category's entries). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:10, 26 April 2020 (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.

Pamphleteers[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: Option A Timrollpickering (talk) 10:28, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging either:
Option A
or
Option B
Nominator's rationale: Duplicates: the terms "pamphleteer" and "pamphlet writer" have the same meaning. They should be merged in one direction or the other, and redirects should be retained.
I prefer Option A, because the head article is at Pamphleteer, and is also the term used in dictionaries, e.g. Merriam Webster.
Note that Category:Pamphlet writers is an older creation ... but it was created by a notorious creator of badly named categories, who after being blocked became a prolific sockpuppeteer. So I give no weight to its creation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:32, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry @Oculi. Option B now fixed.
And thanks for that reminder of PW's absurdities. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:34, 24 April 2020 (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:UAE Goldcard Holder[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 Timrollpickering (talk) 10:29, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Sounds like some sort of credit card. We certainly have no article for it. Edwardx (talk) 09:55, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for Now Looks like it's a permanent visa program for residents]. It needs a main article before we can even consider whether it's defining. RevelationDirect (talk) 11:51, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rationale from creator:UAE recently started giving long-term visa (just like green cards in US) to non-citizens. It has been reported that only 400 such visas were given on invitation. Therefore, having this category to tag the persons, who UAE considers have contributed significantly will be a feather in the caps of the recipients. In my view, this category may be worth when comparing to some of the categories like 1902 births, 1978 deaths. Just my two cents. CharlestonMaani(talk) 19:32, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see a category for Category:Green Card holders though. RevelationDirect (talk) 14:24, 25 April 2020 (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:Economics paradoxes[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 May 9#Category:Economics paradoxes

Category:JO1[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 Timrollpickering (talk) 10:30, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:OCEPON. Only one other article besides the category's eponymous article. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 03:16, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for Now With no objection to recreating if it ever gets up to 5 directly related articles defined by J01. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:54, 30 April 2020 (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:Caddie Hall of Fame inductees[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. MER-C 12:28, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEFINING (WP:OCAWARD, WP:OCASSOC, and WP:OVERLAPCAT)
The Caddie Hall of Fame recognizes professional golf caddies. This Wikipedia category is mostly professional golfers and others who caddied in their youth; look at Max Elbin, Old Tom Morris, Willie Park Sr., John Shippen to see what I mean. Within the actual caddie articles, this award is generally mentioned in passing and doesn't seem defining. (There's also an overlap issue: of the 8 articles here actually about professional caddies, 7 are in Category:American caddies, and, conversely, 7 of the 9 article in that category are in this one.) The winners of this award, most of whom don't have a Wikipedia article, are already listified here in the list article. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:06, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
*RFC There is an open request for comments on proposed changes to WP:OCAWARD. Your input (pro/con/other) is always welcome here. - RevelationDirect (talk) 03:40, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 02:56, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Ok, I just have to ask. What does when they caddied have to do with the list or the category? Many golf pros kickstarted their pro careers by being caddies. And then pro caddies started their careers by caddying, etc. Now regarding overlap, how do you decide which category stays and which one goes? It seems to me that this category is the larger one and the American category smaller, and perhaps less notable. I'm also concerned about the list article because it has a close paraphrasing template on it. Is that just going to sit there; it dated in 2018. We can trust that article will be around for the long term if no one fixes it? dawnleelynn(talk) 21:59, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Reply When they were caddies doesn't have anything to do with the list but categories have to defining and the pro golfers have articles because of their pro golfing, not for a job they had in their youth so being a caddie is not defining for them. We have two overlapping American categories for caddies: one of which consists entirely of people defined by being caddies and another where a minority of members are defined by being caddies. Improvements to the article are, of course, welcome and I have no intention of nominating it for AFD. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:27, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Reply Thank you for your answer. I do understand your response about pro golfers not being defined by being caddies. I'm just not sure I understand how we reconcile the hall of fame definition against the categories we can define. Meaning the hall of fame is saying they are all defined; and can we really go on an article-by-article basis to determine which subjects can be defined by this category and which can't?
Also, the list article is cluttered and a category of just the ones who have articles is nice. And, I need to clarify that my concern with the list article's close paraphrasing template was not directed at you taking action. I did not write this up the way I should have. All it takes is the right person driving by and good bye article. For example, an article I was familiar with for some time, created in 2009, Margaret Formby, was cited for close paraphrasing in October 2019. It's now a stub article. There are so many more cases of issues I have seen happen with templates on articles, such that I don't like to leave loose ends on articles I work with. But I am just here to learn and comment on this particular CfD. I ask and comment on all these issues in good faith. dawnleelynn(talk) 03:14, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The list included a lot of flowery prose extolling the virtues of the winners and why they won the award. I reworded and shortened those and removed the close paraphrase tag, along with some other cleanup. The article could certainly use some more improvements but I don't think it's in danger of an AFD now. RevelationDirect (talk) 12:08, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
RevelationDirect I very very much appreciate the work you did on the list article. That was so nice of you! I still am learning the how the guidelines work for overlap. I think it makes sense in some cases and not in others. As for defining, I do recall the World Golf Hall of Fame, and believed it was a clear case of a category that was defining. They are adding Tiger Woods this year, btw. And now I am seeing that I can't necessarily say that I believe that as strongly for this category. dawnleelynn(talk) 20:24, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, remember that a "defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define the subject as having". There's a huge difference between the two Hall of Fames. Being in the World Golf Hall of Fame is important. You can find articles including text like "World Golf Hall of Famer Tom Kite". Ian Woosnam made a big fuss about not being in. There are campaigns to get people in (Ted Ray (golfer) comes to mind). We reflect that by having a link to their web site in {{Infobox golfer}} for those who are in it. By contrast, the Caddie Hall of Fame is of little interest. A few caddies are notable but many of the Caddie Hall of Famers are not notable as caddies, eg Jack Nicklaus. It's certainly not "defining" for him. Others like Tom Dreesen seems to have little connection with golf at all, its not "defining" for them either. We are left with a few people notable as caddies: Fanny Sunesson and Steve Williams (caddie) come to mind. However, even for them I don't think anyone's going to say "Caddie Hall of Famer Steve Williams". No, more likely "Steve Williams, Tiger Wood's long-time caddie" (or similar). So it's not "defining" for them either. Nigej (talk) 08:45, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as not defining, which is especially true for a significant proportion of more recent inductees, who are known for their involvement in all manner of things – except caddying. wjematherplease leave a message... 10:37, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nigej Thank you so much for that explanation. It was very helpful. dawnleelynn(talk) 13:39, 26 April 2020 (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:World Snooker Hall of Fame inductees[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. MER-C 12:28, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:V and WP:NONDEFINING (WP:OCAWARD, WP:OCASSOC)
Wikipedia doesn't have an article on the World Snooker Hall of Fame and I'm having trouble finding an official web site. There is an article about it (or a similar award) here and here so it exists or existed and celebrated snooker players. Of the 29 articles in this category, 4 mention it in passing while 25 don't mention it at all. I listified the current contents here so no work is lost if anyone thinks they can establish verifiability and notability to create a main article. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:06, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
*RFC There is an open request for comments on proposed changes to WP:OCAWARD. Your input (pro/con/other) is always welcome here. - RevelationDirect (talk) 03:40, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 02:57, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Hmm, there certainly is a Hall of Fame - see this years Clive Everton addition, as well as 2018 additions of Hearn and Ding. The BBC recognises it, in this weird category. This topic on it is a bit bland, and doesn't include everyone on the list. As per these (and a few other sources, I don't think V or NONDEFINING is an issue, but rather OCAWARD would be. I'd suggest there would be more print media about the awards, such as in snooker scene. BennyOnTheLoose - is there any info about the Hall of Fame that you know about? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:59, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I can't look back over all my stuff at the moment due to my laptop dying, but I'm pretty sure the awards get coverage in Snooker Scene (although I don't know if that's every year). There are a couple of items I saw on Google News from Xinhua when Ding was inducted in 2018. It seems odd that there isn't a Hall of Fame page on a World Snooker site, and without this I doubt whether any of the sources would define what the Hall of Fame is or any criteria for inclusion. It seems wrong to have a category where there aren't references to support most inclusions, and I think a good way forward would be to get references in individual articles where possible. A Hall of Fame article would probably just be a list with a note about who awards membership. Happy to help progress this once consensus emerges, but it would likely be from primary sources unless my laptop resurrects or until the British Library re-opens. Has an attempt been made to contact the original editor to see if they can advise about sources? BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:55, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I definitely would favor creating an article if possible. Most of the Hall of Fame articles are just like you pictured: an introductory paragraphy followed by a list. RevelationDirect (talk) 11:55, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- [2] might be expected to host a Hall of Fame list, but it does not. If there was any hope of getting a RS for it, I would have suggested we should also listify. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:02, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:43, 28 April 2020 (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/2020_April_24&oldid=1057901336"