Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 July 30

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< July 29 July 31 >

July 30[edit]

Category:Masters of foxhounds[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. It would of course be appropriate to purge any members for whom this is non-defining or unreferenced. – Fayenatic London 06:48, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEFINING (WP:TRIVIALCAT and WP:PERFCAT
According to the header of this category:
"Masters of foxhounds were originally the owners of the packs of hounds used for fox hunting and the employers of hunt servants. Now they are more often the members of fox hunts with control of the hunt. ..."
With the earlier biographies, this appears to be a traditional responsibility of nobles, which is why there are no less than 10 Dukes of Beaufort in this category. For more recent people that lived in the 1900s like George Bullough and George Bevan Bowen, this appears to be a passing hobby function. (There are a few that mention this role in the lede, like Cecil Aldin and Andrew Allan (shipowner), but they are the exception.) Having owners in sports certainly can be defining, like with Category:Canadian Football League owners, but this doesn't seem as defining. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:43, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This is definitely a defining characteristic, as being a master of foxhounds is almost a full-time occupation during the fox hunting season, which lasts for more than half of the year. The case of the Dukes of Beaufort is unusual, as all the Dukes have been masters of the Duke of Beaufort's Hunt, which is a rare exception. The use of the postnominals “M.F.H” (as noted at the head of the category) is also evidence that this is a defining role. Moonraker (talk) 02:25, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There are a lot of other nobility in this category though, like Henry Lowther, 3rd Earl of Lonsdale and John Manners-Sutton, 3rd Baron Manners who presumably were the hound owners but I'm just guessing since their articles don't mention fox hunting at all. - RevelationDirect (talk) 02:58, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It’s hard to say without looking into the detail. Most landowning peers used to have plenty of leisure for such a demanding role, and some still do. Moonraker (talk) 17:27, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ideally, there would be a more narrow category that captured people who did this as a vocation but exclude wealthy landowners that just owned hounds. - RevelationDirect (talk) 18:43, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Owning the hounds doesn’t make you an MFH. Some are rich, some not, but there’s no pay. The huntsman is paid. Moonraker (talk) 03:13, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Master of Foxhounds section says they're often the largest financial contributor and the category header says they typically own the hounds. There appears to be, at least, a financial component. - RevelationDirect (talk) 12:48, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Often the largest financial contributor may be true, but the header says originally owning the hounds, not typically. Not sure where money comes into the discussion here! Moonraker (talk) 02:40, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. What an absurd and repelling "noblesse oblige" UK tradition. I'd say we don't need this category. No doubt at all that it is WP:NONDEFINING (WP:TRIVIALCAT and WP:PERFCAT, just an out-of-time status symbol of rich UK country gentry of former times. --Just N. (talk) 15:57, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Some people are repelled by fox hunting, Just N., but the question is whether being an MFH is a defining characteristic. (You may not have noticed that many are from outside the British Isles.) Moonraker (talk) 06:21, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Whether it is repelling or not is of course an aside. Whether this is a non-defining obligation of nobles, is the central point of disagreement. - RevelationDirect (talk) 10:47, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If it was ever an obligation, RevelationDirect, which I doubt, that was a very long time ago. Until about 1900 most MFHs did come from the landed gentry, but not now. There are a lot of peers in this category because almost all of them were notable until the House of Lords Act 1999 came along, so most have WP articles. See the list of MFHs at Quorn Hunt, only one peer since 1898. But I do not see that the social rank of anyone makes any difference. This is a nearly full-time job for about half the year, even if unpaid, and jobs are defining. Moonraker (talk) 02:35, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
— Duplicate vote: Moonraker (talk • contribs) has already cast a vote above.
  • Comment As it is almost only Moonraker who fights like a fire-breathing lobbyist for this superfluous and obsolete category we all have noticed that it is also he who has been setting KEEP tag markers more than once. Which is foul play and against the rules! --Just N. (talk) 10:26, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, Just N., the second “keep” is for the US category added by Good Ol’factory, please see above. If there is any fire-breathing, it is not coming from me. Moonraker (talk) 11:19, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but purge - I'm looking over Fox_hunting#People and Category:People in sports. And while I understand that there is controversy concerning the sport, other sports have had ontroversy as well. That said, purge anyone that does not have this with a confirming reference in the person's article. - jc37 14:50, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I would like to see more discussion on whether this is defining according to the definition and criteria provided by WP:DEFINING.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bibliomaniac15 21:54, 30 July 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:Revisionist Western[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. – Fayenatic London 06:54, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename for consistency and to avoid any confusion because all the other sub-cats of Category:Western (genre) films by genre are defined as containing films. No Great Shaker (talk) 15:44, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, but Revisionist should be singular. Have amended proposed target in nomination. No Great Shaker (talk) 13:55, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom Revisionist Western films were quite popular in the 1960s and the 1970s. Conversely, I don't recall any Revisionist Western television series. Dimadick (talk) 23:36, 6 August 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:Lawrence Vikings athletic directors[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: dual merge (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 12:50, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Dual merge to Category:College athletic directors in the United States. Contains only 1 article. User:Namiba 15:08, 30 July 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:Sports in Hot Springs, 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: delete (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 12:53, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Contains only the category for sportspeople from the town. User:Namiba 15:04, 30 July 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:Sports in Fort Smith, 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: merge (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 12:56, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: contains only 1 article and a category for sportspeople from the town. User:Namiba 15:03, 30 July 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:Sports in Aliso Viejo, California[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 (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 12:58, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. It contains only a redirect and a category for sportspeople from the town. User:Namiba 15:02, 30 July 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.

Members of the Guild of Saint Luke[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 August 23#Members of the Guild of Saint Luke

Category:Law clerks of Judge Learned Hand[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 (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 13:00, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: We generally do not include titles of persons in category names. Category:Works by Barack Obama, not Category:Works by President Barack Obama. The article about the person is Learned Hand. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:31, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Probably okay to rename it, even if I still doubt that 'Learned Hand' is self-evident. The addition Judge helped to make it easily anderstandable. --Just N. (talk) 12:39, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:34, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle (talk) 07:29, 30 July 2021 (UTC) [reply]
  • Oppose In the case of this name making it clear that it refers to a specific person is needed.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:59, 30 July 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:Myrath[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 (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 13:02, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Articles for two albums only which are already in an appropriate "albums by artist" subcategory. Zero point for this eponymous parent. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 18:28, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bibliomaniac15 04:37, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I am typically in favor of keeping small categories, in order to fit larger categorization schemes. But an eponymous category for this band is unlikely to ever have more that one article. We do not have biographical articles on their members. We do not have articles on their concerts. We do not have articles on any real-life events involving the band. Dimadick (talk) 23:43, 6 August 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:Derek Chauvin[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 (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 13:05, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Subject committed only one crime. This cat is unnecessary. WWGB (talk) 04:36, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:OCEPON. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:14, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the threshold for eponomous caegories is far above 3 articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:00, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all three above editors. Completely unnecessary. No Great Shaker (talk) 20:52, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I guess. I had thought this category would be useful, and I thought others would find further relevant articles to add it to. "Only committ[ing] one crime" isn't a valid reason for deletion, but WP:OCEPON is. On a side note, how many articles are enough to justify an eponymous category? I've never seen a specific number used anywhere, and it's an area I've struggled with in the past. Sean Stephens (talk) 00:57, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • The answer is well over 10, and I think even then I am low balling it a lot.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:26, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Johnpacklambert: Is that ten articles, or ten articles and subcategories? If it's the former, I've seen many in violation of the guideline, and I would most certainly never have created this category if I knew that to be the case. Sean Stephens (talk) 04:31, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • This is just a general rule of thumb. Even if there are well over 10 articles but they all fall into 1 or 2 more appropriate set sub-categories, then there is no need for an eponymous category, which is simply a catch-all. But never for just 2 or 3 related articles. I agree with the delete !votes on this one. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 06:17, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Eponomous categories overcat rule is the second most broken one, just ahead of violation of the rule on awards and just behind our huge level of violations of ERGS rules.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:25, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This could be a viable category if Chauvin's life and crimes happen to inspire notable true-crime works and biopics. So far, this has not happened. Dimadick (talk) 23:48, 6 August 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:Serie E clubs[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 August 7#Category:Serie E clubs

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_July_30&oldid=1040322130"