From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 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
  • Rename per nom and also per King Edward VII School (Johannesburg). Occuli ( talk) 00:25, 18 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Rename per nom. There are indeed other categories for Old Edwardians from other Schools. -- Bduke (Discussion) 00:31, 18 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • REname per nom. The present category, would properly include old boys of Stourbridge Grammar School, and numerous other schools founded (or refounded) under Edward VI. Peterkingiron ( talk) 22:35, 18 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 ( | 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 ( | 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
  • Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 00:50, 18 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Actually is not a minor sports award, it's a relatively major sports institution. In the US, it just isn't feasible to have a single generalized hall of fame. North Carolina State Highway Patrol and Governor of North Carolina have individual articles; why not a category for the Hall of Fame? Not sure how much the nominator knows about sports. And of course, as per WP:Lists, categories and lists are supposed to be synergistic. -- Mr Accountable ( talk) 02:13, 18 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    • In general, it's usually wise not to impugn the knowledge of other editors when you know little about their background, interests, expertise, etc. But in WP, only the recipients of the most prestigious awards are categorized; lists are the preferred method for these: see WP:OCAT#Award recipients. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:59, 18 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom, OCAT, and many recent precedents. Occuli ( talk) 16:13, 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.

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 ( | 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 ( | 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
  • Delete per nom. OCAT and unnecessary race/ethnic category for inclusion; also BLP issues - saying that someone is in a hall of fame that intentionally discriminates against people on the basis of race/ethnicity is a tarnished honor at best. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 00:51, 18 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Undercategorization is as undesirable as overcategorization. What is "BLP"? As for "tarnished honor" - not very civic; and "minor sporting award", one doesn't seem to know much about the topic. -- Mr Accountable ( talk) 02:21, 18 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    • In general, it's usually wise not to impugn the knowledge of other editors when you know little about their background, interests, expertise, etc. But as long as we're doing it, maybe you "don't know much about" how awards are approached in WP. In short, only the recipients of the most prestigious awards are categorized; lists are the preferred method for these: see WP:OCAT#Award recipients. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:57, 18 February 2009 (UTC) reply
      • Halls of Fame are more than awards, there is a sense that the inductee is "in" the hall of fame; American Book Award winners and Nobel laureates are not really "in" anything, they're very unrelated people who are just on a list. Halls of Fame have associated physical facilities and entertainment and hospitality complexes, and are important to the tourist industry; there are many newsworthy events associated with Halls of Fame, starting with voting and induction; the National Baseball Hall of Fame in Cooperstown is probably the best example. The Italian American Sports Hall of Fame lists Budweiser, Pepsi and American Airlines, among others, as sponsors. It goes to notability. This organization, group or company has a list of very notable members, 15 of whom have last names starting with "L", including: Vince Lombardi, Jake LaMotta, Tony LaRussa, Tommy Lasorda... as an award, it is quite prestigious! Taking a look at WP:OCAT#Award recipients, one sees that there are exceptions; looking at the Category:Award winners, we see literally 100s of categories and subcategories all told. Let the exception be. -- Mr Accountable ( talk) 04:30, 18 February 2009 (UTC) reply
      • Thinking about sports and the people in this Hall of Fame, there are so many important figures included, as listed in the comment above, it creates a very worthy list or category of people; and forgot to mention, the guidelines at WP:Categories, lists, and navigation templates and WP:Lists set a definite trend towards inclusion of lists and categories. Nom bucks that trend. -- Mr Accountable ( talk) 04:40, 18 February 2009 (UTC) reply
        • It sure doesn't "buck" this trend. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:19, 18 February 2009 (UTC) reply
          • Contravenes? Opposes? Dismisses? Ignores? -- Mr Accountable ( talk) 07:00, 18 February 2009 (UTC) reply
            • No, my point is that there have been dozens of similar "hall of fame" categories deleted, some of them very recently, but all of them quite consistently over 4 years+. Thus the nomination is entirely in line with recent and traditional precedent on this manner, and is not "bucking" any supposed trend. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:55, 18 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom, OCAT, and many recent precedents. Occuli ( talk) 16:14, 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.

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
  • Delete POV, subjective, OR, per my comments in the prior CFD. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 00:52, 18 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Keep all What guidline(s) in WP:POV are being referred to? After looking at WP:POV, this nom looks like yet a another case of an important set of Wiki guidelines being cited flagrantly, superficially and perhaps antithetically.... The second item in the nom, Category:American football lore, has over 140 items in all. Nominations make as much sense as deleting popular tv shows or best-selling record albums; in other words, they make no sense at all. -- Mr Accountable ( talk) 02:27, 18 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>
      |
    }}
}}
      • Not all such categories are named that way, though. That's more or less why we had the redirects for the film project. PC78 ( talk) 16:19, 18 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.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_February_17&oldid=1074802092"