Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 February 17

< February 16 February 18 >

February 17

Category:Old Edwardians

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:Old Edwardians (Johannesburg). Erik9 (talk) 16:35, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Old Edwardians to Category:Old Edwardians (Johannesburg)
Nominator's rationale: For consistency with other Old Edwardian categories, and to avoid possible confusion. DuncanHill (talk) 22:07, 17 February 2009 (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:Novels by character

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:Novel series by main character. Kbdank71 17:44, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Novels by character (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Or that - I thought my variant easier to understand - we seem to be getting longer & more complex category titles these days. I would support renaming the parent too (... you know, not "Old series"). The lack of a distinct plural for "series" doesn't help. Johnbod (talk) 23:07, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, "series" is a serious bother. How about serieses? :) But in all seriousness, I actually think most readers get that it's plural from the context, since it's generally understood that categories are for multiplicities. So I think we can safely continue with Category:Novel series, and by extension, Category:Novel series by main character. Cgingold (talk) 23:44, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, if you look at the super-cat, Category:Series, you'll see that all but one of the sub-cats also use the form "Xyz series". Cgingold (talk) 23:46, 17 February 2009 (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:North Carolina Sports Hall of Fame

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. Kbdank71 17:41, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:North Carolina Sports Hall of Fame (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete Overcategorization by relatively minor sporting award. A list already exists at List of members of the North Carolina Sports Hall of Fame. (If kept for some reason, category needs to be renamed to an "inductees" category.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:44, 17 February 2009 (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:Stanford Athletic Hall of Fame

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. Kbdank71 17:41, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Stanford Athletic Hall of Fame (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Overcategorization by relatively minor sporting award. An excellent list already exists at Stanford Cardinal#Stanford Athletic Hall of Fame, where all inductees are sorted by sport. (If kept for some reason, category needs to be renamed to an "inductees" category.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:43, 17 February 2009 (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:Italian American Sports Hall of Fame

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. Kbdank71 17:40, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Italian American Sports Hall of Fame (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Overcategorization by minor sporting award. There is no article for the Italian American Sports Hall of Fame, so a better approach would be to create an article and begin listing the inductees. The main article is National Italian American Sports Hall of Fame, where a list of inductees could be be started. Right now there are only 2 articles in the category, so listification might not be worth it yet. (If kept for some reason, category needs to be renamed to Category:National Italian American Sports Hall of Fame inductees.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:39, 17 February 2009 (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 lore and subcategories

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: relisted on 23rd. Kbdank71 17:46, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting/merging these

Nominator's rationale: Delete/Merger criteria for inclusion subjective, violates WP:POV Mayumashu (talk) 18:44, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: While I support the general thrust of this nomination, I noticed after looking at a few that there are problems with the tagging. For example, Category:Professional wrestling lore is tagged for renaming instead of merging. And the links for this CFD aren't properly anchored to this section heading -- they all need a piped parameter at the end for "Category:Sports lore and subcategories". So I'm withholding my endorsement until all such problems are taken care of. Also, it would be a good idea to provide a link to the CFD for NBA lore. Cgingold (talk) 19:56, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
the wrestling lore cat page tag now correct. I haven t figured out the piping bit yet - may try more later Mayumashu (talk) 22:39, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
'Assuming the obvious' and 'local bias' (ie. personal bias). What makes one event from the history of an item 'sports lore' and not another? One's opinion. And just because a lot of people agree that a certain item should belong or that a particular page listed has a lot of items does not remove the POV nature of these lists. Mayumashu (talk) 17:25, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is the word 'lore' and its connotation of 'legendary'. Folklore is different because events and people there may or may not have existed (and therefore the word 'legend' assumes its primary meaning. Here, attributing legendary status on an actual event or person is simply to give one's opinion. Perhaps there should be a Category:Sport(s) history to collect notable occurrences in the history of sport(s)? Mayumashu (talk) 17:48, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you would have looked, you would have found that we already have Category:History of sports, with subcategories like Category:History of American football and Category:History of boxing. Also, as noted above, this nomination was poorly done. None of the links on the links on the nominated categories point to the right section on this page, and some of the categories were never nominated in the first place. - Eureka Lott 18:23, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn t sure if, say, 'history of boxing' and 'boxing history' are the same thing, but they are, arent they. I would support a merger into the 'History of (sport)' pages. Mayumashu (talk) 21:49, 19 February 2009 (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.

Redirects to auto-assessment categories

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. Kbdank71 19:17, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose to delete all of the above categories. Each of these is an empty category that contains a redirect template pointing to an auto-assessment category. Auto-assessment categories are auto-populated by WikiProject templates (for example, Category:Unknown-importance Xbox articles is populated by {{Xboxp}})—there is no reason that any user should ever have to (or should ever) put a page into one of these categories by typing the name of the category manually. Likewise, there is no reason any user should ever be searching for these category names, since they are generally listed on and linked from the WikiProject's own page. Accordingly, I don't think these redirects (generally left over from when older category naming schemes were changed) serve any useful purpose. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 14:06, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: These are causing problems for templates trying to determine which categories to link to. For example, the categories at Category:Sri Lanka articles by quality all link to the wrong "Unassessed" page. --Pascal666 (talk) 14:47, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: At least the Unassessed-Class need deleting as when both Unassessed-Class & Unassessed versions of the categories exist, {{cat class}} links to the wrong one, so they need deleting. As for the others, I'm not fussed either way. -- WOSlinker (talk) 18:42, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - This sounds like a good idea. Mostly I just want to say I'm glad to see these redirect cats dealt with in a more focused way, a decided improvement over the original mass nomination proposal. Cgingold (talk) 20:15, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Have the relevant WikiProjects been notified? These redirects may serve some other purpose, e.g. because {{cat class}} would not otherwise link to the category. That's what the film category was being used for, but it is no longer needed and can be deleted. No opinion on the rest. PC78 (talk) 00:13, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note that {{cat class}} contains a series of conditional statements similar to the following (with white space added for readability):
{{#ifexist:Category:Image-Class {{{topic|}}} articles
  | <td style="background: #ddccff;"> [[:Category:Image-Class {{{topic|}}} articles|Image]]</td>
  | {{#ifexist:Category:Image-Class {{{topic|}}} pages
      | <td style="background: #ddccff;"> [[:Category:Image-Class {{{topic|}}} pages|Image]]/td>
      |
    }}
}}
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.