Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 April 10

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< April 9 April 11 >

April 10[edit]

Category:Stanley Cup champions[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. Most of the discussion centred around Category:Stanley Cup champions; there wasn't much discussion of Category:Triple Gold Club. If re-nominated in the future, considering these separately may be advisable. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:04, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Similar to the January 2021 discussion on Super Bowl champions, this is an example of WP:PERFCAT. User:Namiba 23:45, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The issue of whether hockey should have a naxbox or not is immaterial to this discussion. We don't categorize performers by their performances and performing in a Super Bowl, the Stanley Cup, the World Series, the Grey Cup etc are all categories by performance.--User:Namiba 13:23, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would argue that sport championships are not a "performance", especially as written there. Kaiser matias (talk) 04:41, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This category doesn't categorize by performing in the Stanley Cup championships, it categories those who won the Stanley cup. There is a huge difference. It is functionally the equivalent of an actor winning Best Actor Academy Award. -DJSasso (talk) 17:09, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, it would be like categorizing actors who never won the academy award but were in a movie (team) that did. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:41, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Except the Stanley cup is considered to be won by the individuals on the team, not just the team. Hockey unlike some other team sports goes out of its way to indicate that specific people are the winners and in doing so inscribe the names of the individuals on the Cup. Just like we categorize the different winners of an Olympic Medal that played a team sport. Or are you suggesting we shouldn't call those people Olympic Medalists as well? -DJSasso (talk) 11:55, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Olympics will always be an outlier with WP:PERFCAT because, without that one defining performance, most Olympic athletes would never be notable enough to have a Wikipedia article. The Big 4/Big 6 sports leagues seem like a more apt comparison here. - RevelationDirect (talk) 17:12, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete being a member of a team that wins the Stanley Cup is not really defining for all the members of the team. The winners are the teams, not the players, so this category is misnamed. We should only categorize players by individual awards, not by awards received by a team they were on.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:39, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Being a Stanley Cup winner is very much a defining trait for individuals, and is highlighted for anyone who does win it. It is a key thing to mention in summarizing a player's career. Kaiser matias (talk) 04:41, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Unlike some sports, the Stanley cup is considered to actually be won by the individuals on the team as well as the team overall. This is why in hockey the names of the players on the team are inscribed on the cup itself. -DJSasso (talk) 16:51, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both Being a Stanley Cup winner is perhaps the most defining trait of a hockey player. It is one of the first things mentioned in an obituary and will usually be mentioned in any articles about a player. It is pretty much the epitome of a defining characteristic. Winning a Stanley Cup isn't a performer by performance. It is an award and we categorize by awards all the time. Category:Academy Award winners for example. A performance category on the other hand would be Category:Hockey players who played in Wild vs Kings game on April 15th for example if we were trying to compare it to an actor in a movie for example. The Triple Gold category is a group of people who have won specific awards as well. I assume if you are deleting these you intended to delete all the Olympic medal winner categories and all the Academy award winners eventually? Winning an award is not a performance. -DJSasso (talk) 16:41, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's akin to being a cast member of an award-winning show. Should it be mentioned in the article? Yes. Is it defining in the way we define it on Wikipedia? No. That's why Super Bowl, Grey Cup, World Series and other similar categories have already been deleted, sometimes multiple times.--User:Namiba 13:35, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it most certainly is defining in the way we define things on Wikipedia. I would argue that Stanley Cup champions would probably be the most look up category for hockey players. All attempts to add athletes to PERFCAT have failed to gain consensus. It simply does not apply to athletes. -DJSasso (talk) 12:24, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The numerous other discussions mentioned above, all of which resulted in deletion, seem to indicate the consensus. I recognize that the NHL has loyal editors who want to protect their category, but that should not stop us from creating consistency and ensuring that the overwhelming consensus is followed.--13:11, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
I wouldn't call the low numbers of people involved in those discussions overwhelming consensus, especially considering the relevant wikiprojects hadn't been notified to give their opinions in them. To be honest, since PERFCAT very clearly doesn't apply to athletes they should probably go to Deletion Review. -DJSasso (talk) 19:21, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
DRV is of course always open to you but WP:PERFCAT reads: "Examples of "performers" include (but are not limited to)..." Professional athletes would meet the plain definition of a performer to most people. Whether these categories fit the guideline is certainly up to debate, but athletes aren't exempt from consideration. - RevelationDirect (talk) 16:59, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It would be fine to put articles from Category:National Hockey League seasons by team into similar categories since these are team awards. Putting people in team award categories is WP:PERFCAT. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:40, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, a Stanley Cup winner is probably the most defining trait of a hockey team, but the category has been populated with individuals. Move the list articles to the parent categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:52, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- The enormous population of this category shows that it can never be an aid to WP navigation. If we had such a category, it would need to be split by year, but that would result in it showing the winning team for (say) 2015, which would merely duplicate a seasons by team category. The truth is that the cup is an award. WP:OCAWARD forbids award winners categories, with a few exceptions, such as the Academy Awards and Nobel Prizes. It also fails WP:PERFCAT by highlighting one sporting appearance. This is not to denigrate the achievement. The normal outcome for award categories is to listify in an article and delete, but the list should already be in the team's season article. Peterkingiron (talk) 09:49, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - WP:PERFCAT doesn’t mention athletes in competition and attempts to add sportspeople to the guideline have gone nowhere. Of course athletes are defined by championships. Rikster2 (talk) 14:50, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • By the way, WP:PERFCAT has four specific sub-sections to it: "Performers by action or appearance" (example - "Actresses who have appeared veiled"), "Performers by role or composition" (example - "Actors who have played serial killers"), "Performers by series or performance venue" (example - "Artists who played Coachella"), and "Role or composition by performer" (example - "Characters portrayed by Johnny Depp"). Which of these applies to "Stanley Cup champions?" The answer is none because PERFCAT was never meant to be applied to Sportspeople and competition and it has been misapplied in several CfD discussions in my opinion. If PERFCAT were intended to cover sports, there would be at least some sport examples in the guideline, or at least have guidelines that are easily translatable to something other than fine arts. That guideline should be rewritten - if appropriate after a legit consensus discussion - to include sport examples if it is truly meant to cover these cases. Rikster2 (talk) 15:47, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Let's be clear as to what PERFCAT actual states, "Avoid categorizing performers by their performances. Examples of "performers" include (but are not limited to) actors/actresses (including pornographic actors), comedians, dancers, models, orators, singers, etc. This includes categorizing a production by performers' performances. For example, just as we shouldn't categorize a performer by action or appearance, we shouldn't categorize a production by a performer's action or appearance in that production." So clearly, it applies to performers of all kinds, of which a professional athlete is obviously one.--User:Namiba 16:14, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The guideline has existed for over 10 years (I think) and has NEVER contained anything but the fine arts and the wording has never fit anything but the fine arts. Athletes aren't "performing," they are competing. They are not performing in "productions," they are competing in games, tournaments and leagues. I appreciate that it has been a personal quest of some to expand it, but again, that has never happened in ten years. Artists and athletes are different and the entire guideline is written for artists of various types. So, no, one doesn't have to buy your personal extrapolation of the written guideline - that isn't what it actually says. Rikster2 (talk) 19:25, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the majority of editors believe it does, which is why multiple similar categories have been deleted by a strong consensus already. The guideline specifically does not limit it to those performers listed. Professional sportspeople, competing in front of thousands or even millions of people, are obviously performers. I am glad most editors disagree with your limited and anachronistic views.--User:Namiba 13:54, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The majority of editors? Why don’t you count up the total number of different editors who weighed in on those CfDs and report back. I suspect it will not be anything like a “majority of editors.” Rikster2 (talk) 00:48, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We've deleted dozens of individual radio/TV station categories populated with disc jockeys, newscasters, and weatherpeople who frequently change jobs, and they are hardly in the "fine arts". - RevelationDirect (talk) 18:27, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
DJs, Newscasters, weather people are however, performing, in the same way someone in the performance arts does. Athletes do not perform in the same way as the wording of PERFCAT describes, they compete in a competition. Every example on PERFCAT describes some sort of performance art, while obviously sports figures provide entertainment for others, there is nothing in the wording of PERFCAT that would indicate it extends outside of the performance arts, especially considering there has been discussion on expanding it outside of the performance arts and there has never been consensus that it does. -DJSasso (talk) 17:17, 23 April 2021 (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:Wikipedians on administrator review[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) 03:38, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Empty category, Wikipedia:Administrator review is defunct. * Pppery * it has begun... 18:35, 10 April 2021 (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:Wikipedians questioning on picking pickles[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) 03:36, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Inapproriate joke/nonsense user category * Pppery * it has begun... 17:56, 10 April 2021 (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:Films directed by J. Mahendran[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 to Category:Films directed by Mahendran (filmmaker). Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:33, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Match the parent article: Mahendran (filmmaker) Kailash29792 (talk) 04:37, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Film directors tend to have sons/daughters/relatives of the same surname which follow them, e.g. the Coppolas, several Iranian or Indian director families. So better keep. --Just N. (talk) 14:41, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle (talk) 08:09, 10 April 2021 (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:Romanian people in the Principality of Transylvania (1570–1711)[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:00, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge/diffuse, before joining Romania, Romanian was already the majority language in Transylvania (see Transylvania#Population). It is not usual to diffuse by a majority characteristic. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:15, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all three It's actually debatable whether it was all points a majority rather than a plurality; but what is more, this actually refers to a cultural characteristic that was shared by only a minority of the political elite, in a multi-ethnic setting, and it has immediate use for the reader trying to locate Romanians active in that period. While most shepherds in Transylvania were Romanian, very few shepherds were notable, and very few Romanians were politicians, aristocrats etc. This is more along the lines of Category:Croatian Austro-Hungarians, the vast majority of whom lived in regions that were almost entirely Croat. Also note that it is in fact a wikipedia tradition to group people of a certain regional ethnic group together even in cases where they are/were the majority of that region; even excluding the the Croats mentioned above, we have: Category:French Quebecers, Category:Sudeten German people, Category:Greek Cypriot people etc. Dahn (talk) 07:30, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all — mostly per Dahn. I would emphasize: the categories cover a time when few Transylvanian Romanians achieved notability (and who have been written about as such), when few entered politics (and who did so, rather vocally, as Romanians, primarily). They are vital to readers interested in the time and place described, and should stay. — Biruitorul Talk 13:59, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support at least first two -- However I would have preferred Category:Transylvanian people Category:People of Transylvania. Why the boundaries of 1570 and 1711? The area was lost to Hungarian control at Battle of Mohács in 1526, followed by a period of de facto indpendence. Austrian (or Hungarian) control resumed gradually after the Ottoman defeat at Vienna in 1683, though formalised in 1711. It is a result of the history of the area that a significant portion of the population are (or until WWII were) Hungarian speakers. There is thus scope for having two ethnic subcategories - Hungarian and Romanian. The treaty ending WWI protected the rights of Hungarians, but the Communist regime after WWII decided that such protection was unnecessary under socialism. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:40, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support keeping all three Dahn's argument is the essences of my thoughts, he simply expressed it far better than I could. These are different periods of time that have historical significance and should remain separate from each other. Jurisdicta (talk) 22:21, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all per Dahn. Super Ψ Dro 15:18, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all three (better contextualization for the reader, as per WP:COP). (Rgvis (talk) 09:07, 14 April 2021 (UTC))[reply]
  • Merge The idea we can clealy decide what the ethnicity was of people before 1870 in eastern Europe is overtrusting in the stability of ethnicity in a way that is a myth of the 19th-century nationalist. It does not actually correspond to the reality of history, and so we need to stop perpetuating such myths.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:41, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is debatable (at any rate, I’d push back the 1870 date by half a century at least), but “Romanian” as used here is sometimes more of a linguistic or religious than an ethnic marker. For example, many of these figures were members of the Romanian Greek Catholic Church — note that first word, used as far back as its founding documents around 1700. — Biruitorul Talk 18:22, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Further comment -- The first kingdom of Romania existed because Wallachia and Moldovia both chose the same king, but Transylvania was not part of his realm. Before that the term Romania did not exist, so that Romanian people of Transylvania is an oxymoron. Ethnicities in eastern Europe are complicated because there was a lack of ethnically homogeneous nation states. The position is somewhat different today, because people migrated after WWII to their perceived ethnic homeland. The situation is further complicated by Austro-Hungarian efforts to settle their borders colonially with people who would be loyal. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:03, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Peterkingiron: Can you specifically indicate which cases now included in the categories would present the reader with that problem? Dahn (talk) 04:42, 19 April 2021 (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:Ashesi Wiki Club[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) 03:31, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Single-user category whose sole member has not edited in over a year. * Pppery * it has begun... 03:36, 10 April 2021 (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:Wikipedian WikiOtters[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) 03:30, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Recreation of category deleted per Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/User/Archive/April 2008#Category:WikiOtters * Pppery * it has begun... 03:27, 10 April 2021 (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:Recipients of the Order of the Gold Lion of the House of Nassau[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) 03:29, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:NONDEFINING (WP:PERFCAT, WP:OVERLAPCAT, and WP:OCAWARD)
The Order of the Gold Lion of the House of Nassau is given out both by Luxembourg and the royal family of the Netherlands, as both country's royal families are in branches of the the House of Nassau. The recipients tend to fall into three categories:
  • 1 Diplomatic Souvenirs: Emperor Akihito of Japan, Marshal Josip Broz Tito of Yugoslavia, and President Heinz Fischer of Austria are not remotely defined by having a formal diplomatic visit with either country.
  • 2 House of Nassau members: The King of the Netherlands and the Grand Duke of Luxembourg are automatically the Grand Masters of the order and other members of their families automatically receive other grades.
  • 3 Some Combination of the Above: It's not clear if Edward VII, Alexander II of Russia, or Napoleon III received the award as part of diplomacy or due to being a distant relative, since the royal families were intermarried.
Regardless of the reason, the award generally is mentioned in passing with other honours and doesn't seem defining. There wasn't a list so I created one right here in the main article for any reader interested in the topic. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:12, 10 April 2021 (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:Recipients of the National Order of the Leopard[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) 03:28, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEFINING (WP:PERFCAT, WP:OVERLAPCAT, and WP:OCAWARD)
When high ranking foreign people meet with the Democratic Republic of the Congo (previously Zaire), the National Order of the Leopard is given out as a souvenir. Supreme Leader Kim Jong-il, Emperor Akihito, and Lord Mayor of London Robin Gillett are not remotely defined by this award. (About a third of the articles are Congolese people but they are overwhelmingly high ranking politicians already under Category:Democratic Republic of the Congo politicians.) All the category contents are now listified right here in the main article for any reader interested in the topic. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:12, 10 April 2021 (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/2021_April_10&oldid=1021494744"