The result of the debate was rename. Syrthiss 14:53, 6 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Reason in brief: For consistency with the majority of Category:Footballers by club subcategories, so that all football player categories are of the form Category:Foo F.C. players, where Foo F.C. is exact title of the club article.
Reason in detail: This is the first chunk of moves within Category:Footballers by club. Currently, the supercategory contains 29 intermediate country categories, which in total contain 336 subcategories. Of these, 270 are named Category:Foo F.C. players, and 65 are named Category:Foo F.C. footballers (plus there is Category:Alhilal which is neither). It seems most obvious then to move the "footballers" categories to "players". An alternative would be to leave all the above categories where they are, and move all the "players" categories to "footballers". This would obviously involve a lot more moves, and be potentially more disruptive, since more people are presumably used to using the "players" categories.
After a brief discussion on WikiProject Football, it seems (to me at least) that moving all categories to "players" should not cause any serious problems of ambiguity, since in those cases where one club plays more than one sport (e.g. Barcelona), there are separate articles for the separate teams (e.g. FC Barcelona, Winterthur FCB, and FC Barcelona-Cifec), and separate categories for each sport can be named in line with the articles.
Consistency is the important thing; for example, when a new footballer article is created, the author should not have to look up each category separately to find what the correct form is. Either "players" or "footballers" would do equally well from this viewpoint.
The other point to note is that the category name should exactly match the article name, and this is not the case for several of the existing categories (I'm in the process of working out exactly how many, but it is no more than 83, and probably a lot less). The reason why I haven't yet nominated all the other "footballers" categories in other countries is that there seems to be a lot of inconsistency in club article names, and it makes no sense to move the categories now just to have to move them again if the club names change. There's a full list of categories in my Playpen.
Finally, and this is not a particularly important consideration, but several other sports that categorise players by club or team (including NHL, NFL, NBA and MLB, but not cricket) use "players" in category names.
In summary: I propose moving the above 18 categories from "footballers" to "players" for consistency. — sjorford (talk) 17:27, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Syrthiss 14:55, 6 May 2006 (UTC) reply
We have Category:Far-left politicians but Category:Right-wing populists. Now, to my mind, deciding whether someone is "Far-left" (or "Far-right") is inherently a bit POV, but calling one sort of political extremist a "politician" and another sort a "populist" is even worse. (An old CFD debate from a year or so ago is archived on the talk page, closed with a "keep" on the basis that external sources can tell us who are extreme right-wingers.) -- ALoan (Talk) 16:29, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete all. Syrthiss 14:57, 6 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Category:Imdb name This was added to the imdb template, I'm not sure there is any point in having it. Arniep 16:01, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Hope you don't mind - I've expanded this to include Category:Imdb title, Category:Amg name and Category:Amg movie. All of them are redundant - their use on the templates doesn't allow proper sorting, there are already film and actor categories, and "What links here" shows the template usage. Delete all. — Wh o uk ( talk) 17:44, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. Syrthiss 14:59, 6 May 2006 (UTC) reply
See previous CfD at
Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Category:Writers who have killed themselves
Pjacobi 15:01, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply
I am frustrated with the seeming cavalier attitude some of the Users in Wikipedia seem to have regarding categorization. To some it seems to be a nuisance; to a researcher it is crucial.
No matter what else it may be to some, an Encyclopedia is primarily a research tool, and the convenience of the researcher must be in mind when it is constructed and maintained.
And, concerning Subcategories, I keep running into a particular issue. This was recently included in a message to me regarding an edit I had made to an Article. I had included both the Main Category and it’s appropriate - to the Article – Subcategory : “Normally articles that are in subcategories should not be in the parent category as well.”
It shouldn’t matter how many Categories are included in a given Article, if they are relevant to the subject so be it. Again, an Encyclopedia is primarily a research tool. I do not see where it matters how many Categories are included in a particular Article - if each is relevant to that Article - each needs to be included for it to be complete.
If all of the entries in a given Subcategory fed into the main Category, and this main Category could be viewed as a separate and complete list – this would be fine. But without this, if, for example, I wanted to have a list of all persons who were the victims of firearm deaths I would have to locate all of the subcategories, view each as a separate list and collate them myself. This seems rather foolish when this could be accomplished for me by including all of the relevant Articles into a main Category and its appropriate Subcategory in the first place. In this way I could view all of them, or just a subset.
Wikipedia has come to be a valuable first-level research tool for me; and I am trying to encourage my colleagues to use it as well.
Frustrated,
Michael David 12:45, 28 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep/withdrawn. — Wh o uk ( talk) 08:59, 27 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Rename. the point was made that not all "English Professors" are critics but that some are writers or poets. (another point is that having literary academics and linguists together seems to me not to reflect accurately on how university departments are generally arranged) Mayumashu 14:27, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Nomination withdrawn. Apologies Mayumashu 02:25, 27 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was del. Syrthiss 15:00, 6 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Main article is being considered for deletion. Category not really useful. Possible POV. Joelito 13:40, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Syrthiss 15:12, 6 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Empty category that will never get more than one or two articles. Currently the only article that should go here is Hydra 70
The result of the debate was merge. Syrthiss 15:15, 6 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Merge was suggested on the dialects talk page ( here). No vote. SeventyThree( Talk) 09:18, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Syrthiss 15:15, 6 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Empty, and not linked to according to What Links Here. According to the talk page, empty as of July 2005. I doubt it's been used in the meantime. If the project/template which populated this category is resurrected, it'll be easy enough to recreate, so we might as well delete. SeventyThree( Talk) 08:57, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Syrthiss 15:16, 6 May 2006 (UTC) reply
"Major" is a vague term for cities. This category has got places like Cuttack and Guwahati which are really small places. There is already another proper category called Category:Cities_and_towns_in_India, which has got entries for big cities like Delhi, Chennai and Bangalore. I'd suggest moving the entries from "Major Cities in India" to "Cities and towns in India". We can of course sub-categorize the cities category later, but we need to give a specific title for area or population. I can't think of a proper title though. Jay 05:26, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Syrthiss 15:17, 6 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The category purports to group together "Northern States" of the U.S. The category is altogether vague. In the first place, it is unclear from the name what country the grouped items are states of; moreover, it is unclear as to what these states are "north" of. The category is populated arbitrarily. Many citizens of Delaware and Maryland, for example, would be surprised to learn they are in "northern states"; and why have Montana, Idaho, Washington, etc. been excluded? It makes no sense. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 03:55, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was rename. Syrthiss 14:53, 6 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Reason in brief: For consistency with the majority of Category:Footballers by club subcategories, so that all football player categories are of the form Category:Foo F.C. players, where Foo F.C. is exact title of the club article.
Reason in detail: This is the first chunk of moves within Category:Footballers by club. Currently, the supercategory contains 29 intermediate country categories, which in total contain 336 subcategories. Of these, 270 are named Category:Foo F.C. players, and 65 are named Category:Foo F.C. footballers (plus there is Category:Alhilal which is neither). It seems most obvious then to move the "footballers" categories to "players". An alternative would be to leave all the above categories where they are, and move all the "players" categories to "footballers". This would obviously involve a lot more moves, and be potentially more disruptive, since more people are presumably used to using the "players" categories.
After a brief discussion on WikiProject Football, it seems (to me at least) that moving all categories to "players" should not cause any serious problems of ambiguity, since in those cases where one club plays more than one sport (e.g. Barcelona), there are separate articles for the separate teams (e.g. FC Barcelona, Winterthur FCB, and FC Barcelona-Cifec), and separate categories for each sport can be named in line with the articles.
Consistency is the important thing; for example, when a new footballer article is created, the author should not have to look up each category separately to find what the correct form is. Either "players" or "footballers" would do equally well from this viewpoint.
The other point to note is that the category name should exactly match the article name, and this is not the case for several of the existing categories (I'm in the process of working out exactly how many, but it is no more than 83, and probably a lot less). The reason why I haven't yet nominated all the other "footballers" categories in other countries is that there seems to be a lot of inconsistency in club article names, and it makes no sense to move the categories now just to have to move them again if the club names change. There's a full list of categories in my Playpen.
Finally, and this is not a particularly important consideration, but several other sports that categorise players by club or team (including NHL, NFL, NBA and MLB, but not cricket) use "players" in category names.
In summary: I propose moving the above 18 categories from "footballers" to "players" for consistency. — sjorford (talk) 17:27, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Syrthiss 14:55, 6 May 2006 (UTC) reply
We have Category:Far-left politicians but Category:Right-wing populists. Now, to my mind, deciding whether someone is "Far-left" (or "Far-right") is inherently a bit POV, but calling one sort of political extremist a "politician" and another sort a "populist" is even worse. (An old CFD debate from a year or so ago is archived on the talk page, closed with a "keep" on the basis that external sources can tell us who are extreme right-wingers.) -- ALoan (Talk) 16:29, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete all. Syrthiss 14:57, 6 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Category:Imdb name This was added to the imdb template, I'm not sure there is any point in having it. Arniep 16:01, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Hope you don't mind - I've expanded this to include Category:Imdb title, Category:Amg name and Category:Amg movie. All of them are redundant - their use on the templates doesn't allow proper sorting, there are already film and actor categories, and "What links here" shows the template usage. Delete all. — Wh o uk ( talk) 17:44, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. Syrthiss 14:59, 6 May 2006 (UTC) reply
See previous CfD at
Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Category:Writers who have killed themselves
Pjacobi 15:01, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply
I am frustrated with the seeming cavalier attitude some of the Users in Wikipedia seem to have regarding categorization. To some it seems to be a nuisance; to a researcher it is crucial.
No matter what else it may be to some, an Encyclopedia is primarily a research tool, and the convenience of the researcher must be in mind when it is constructed and maintained.
And, concerning Subcategories, I keep running into a particular issue. This was recently included in a message to me regarding an edit I had made to an Article. I had included both the Main Category and it’s appropriate - to the Article – Subcategory : “Normally articles that are in subcategories should not be in the parent category as well.”
It shouldn’t matter how many Categories are included in a given Article, if they are relevant to the subject so be it. Again, an Encyclopedia is primarily a research tool. I do not see where it matters how many Categories are included in a particular Article - if each is relevant to that Article - each needs to be included for it to be complete.
If all of the entries in a given Subcategory fed into the main Category, and this main Category could be viewed as a separate and complete list – this would be fine. But without this, if, for example, I wanted to have a list of all persons who were the victims of firearm deaths I would have to locate all of the subcategories, view each as a separate list and collate them myself. This seems rather foolish when this could be accomplished for me by including all of the relevant Articles into a main Category and its appropriate Subcategory in the first place. In this way I could view all of them, or just a subset.
Wikipedia has come to be a valuable first-level research tool for me; and I am trying to encourage my colleagues to use it as well.
Frustrated,
Michael David 12:45, 28 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep/withdrawn. — Wh o uk ( talk) 08:59, 27 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Rename. the point was made that not all "English Professors" are critics but that some are writers or poets. (another point is that having literary academics and linguists together seems to me not to reflect accurately on how university departments are generally arranged) Mayumashu 14:27, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Nomination withdrawn. Apologies Mayumashu 02:25, 27 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was del. Syrthiss 15:00, 6 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Main article is being considered for deletion. Category not really useful. Possible POV. Joelito 13:40, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Syrthiss 15:12, 6 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Empty category that will never get more than one or two articles. Currently the only article that should go here is Hydra 70
The result of the debate was merge. Syrthiss 15:15, 6 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Merge was suggested on the dialects talk page ( here). No vote. SeventyThree( Talk) 09:18, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Syrthiss 15:15, 6 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Empty, and not linked to according to What Links Here. According to the talk page, empty as of July 2005. I doubt it's been used in the meantime. If the project/template which populated this category is resurrected, it'll be easy enough to recreate, so we might as well delete. SeventyThree( Talk) 08:57, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Syrthiss 15:16, 6 May 2006 (UTC) reply
"Major" is a vague term for cities. This category has got places like Cuttack and Guwahati which are really small places. There is already another proper category called Category:Cities_and_towns_in_India, which has got entries for big cities like Delhi, Chennai and Bangalore. I'd suggest moving the entries from "Major Cities in India" to "Cities and towns in India". We can of course sub-categorize the cities category later, but we need to give a specific title for area or population. I can't think of a proper title though. Jay 05:26, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Syrthiss 15:17, 6 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The category purports to group together "Northern States" of the U.S. The category is altogether vague. In the first place, it is unclear from the name what country the grouped items are states of; moreover, it is unclear as to what these states are "north" of. The category is populated arbitrarily. Many citizens of Delaware and Maryland, for example, would be surprised to learn they are in "northern states"; and why have Montana, Idaho, Washington, etc. been excluded? It makes no sense. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 03:55, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply