Category:Visitor attractions in Greater Miami, Florida
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.
Support rename The use of "Greater Miami" seems rather limited, and there do not appear to be any attractions here situated outside of
Miami-Dade County, Florida. The proposed title provides a name more consistent with other such categories.
Alansohn (
talk)
03:33, 19 April 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.
SMSAs
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.
Nominator's rationale: In the mass renames of "City" to "City, State" categories, we haven't been giving SMSAs state names. In the latter category, I had that renamed incorrectly in
this nomination; I can see breaking that category up as well, and in that case it would need the state name.--
Mike Selinker (
talk)
22:56, 17 April 2009 (UTC)reply
Note to closer. I think that this comment was prior to the change in the nomination when the city, state form was being proposed. It was changed after this position was made and now that these are for metropolitan areas, this oppose for Charlotte may not be an issue.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
05:59, 27 April 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:Pre-Tertiary Education in Greater St. Louis
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 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:Ovation Award winners and nominees
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.
Delete / Rename if kept As currently worded,
Wikipedia:OCAT#Award recipients limits awards to those such as "
Category:Nobel laureates and
Category:Academy Award winners", an arbitrarily-high standard that is not evidenced by recent closes on these awards. What should be included are national awards and those granted locally that receive national recognition. The
Ovation Awards are described as "a Southern California award for excellence in theatre", and from what I see receive limited coverage outside Southern California. I couldn't find a single mention of the award in The New York Times or other East Coast publications. While most of the articles in this category do mention the receipt of Ovation Awards, all of them seem to be rather far down in the article. Grouping productions and actors in a single
Category:Ovation Award winners and nominees seems to lump too much together and adds little to navigation. Under the existing Wikipedia:OCAT#Award recipients standard (which seems to be unobserved by consensus) there would hardly any award categories, certainly not this one. Under this proposed rewrite of the standard, which seems to more clearly reflect reality, this category would be deleted as well.
Alansohn (
talk)
22:42, 17 April 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:Organizations by country
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:Nothing was tagged for nomination, but from the discussion it is apparent that there is no consensus to standardiZ/Se the spelling across all categories, and probably a consensus to keep things as they are. If any particular category name is thought to be inappropriately spelled, it would probably be best treated with an individual nomination.
Good Ol’factory(talk)01:41, 23 April 2009 (UTC)reply
Standard procedure is to use UK spelling for other European countries, since the only English-speaking countries to use US spelling are in the western hemisphere. So the Albanian one should be "organisations". The overall one, and any for use as a worldwide over-category, can easily remain "organizations" however.
Grutness...wha?01:37, 18 April 2009 (UTC)reply
Grutness: I cannot find mention of this in
WP:ENGVAR. Is there a guideline or policy on this? For instance, in Norway it is just as common to write US English as UK English. There is no "official" English spelling in the country, both are taught in the schools and despite pre-19th century historical ties to the UK, most popular culture comes from the US. Arsenikk(talk)15:08, 22 April 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:Knuckleball pitchers
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:Listify and Delete - And since
the list already exists, this can be deleted. In weighing the arguments, the ones that carried the most weight were the note that this would be better presented in a navbox and/or a list (even several who weren't opposed to keeping suggested this as an option), and the comments that this is similar to other types of OCAT, such as performers by performance. The latter argument indicating that this is not a case where a category should co-exist with a list and/or navbox. Editors should, of course, feel free to create such a navbox at editorial discretion. -
jc3712:32, 25 April 2009 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Delete. This is the only category that adresses those who are known to throw a particular baseball
pitch. I am of the opinion that
knuckleball pitchers can be notable, but does it need a category? I say that a collection of famous knuckleball pitchers can be listed. Or... categories for all the other pitches would need to be created for consistency.Neonblaktalk - 05:29, 6 April 2009 (UTC)reply
Comment - It's certainly true that knuckleballers are a rare breed, but I'm not sure a category makes good sense. I think probably a navbox template is the right way to go for this.
Cgingold (
talk)
05:51, 6 April 2009 (UTC)reply
Delete - The information about pitchers known to throw the knuckleball is of encyclopedic interest, but it can be (and apparently already is) included in
Knuckleball. No additional value is derived from also having a category for these pitchers. --
Orlady (
talk)
17:04, 6 April 2009 (UTC)reply
Possibly keep not my field, but I though particular pitchers were particularly and perhaps primarily known for this? DGG (
talk)
03:31, 9 April 2009 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Kbdank7112:50, 17 April 2009 (UTC)reply
Keep per Alansohn's excellent list, which establishes to my satisfaction (as one who knows nothing about baseball) that this is a defining characteristic for a pitcher. (It is stretching 'performance by performer' - or indeed 'performer by performance' - beyond breaking point to apply it here; also the article
Knuckleball only includes a handful of practitioners.)
Occuli (
talk)
13:29, 17 April 2009 (UTC)reply
Keep. Not only is the knuckleball a rare pitch and one difficult to throw properly, it often requires the team employing the pitcher who throws one to make specific adjustments to their personnel and their equipment. There are catchers out there who are, or have been, known for their ability to catch a knuckleball (
Doug Mirabelli is a recent example). This certifies it to my mind as a characteristic much more defining than simply being left-handed. -
Dewelar (
talk)
13:39, 17 April 2009 (UTC)reply
Keep I had seen the CfD the morning it was closed and not had a chance to consider the nomination and gather information about the definingness of the category. The Neyer/James Guide to Pitchers by
Rob Neyer lists some 80 pitchers who used the knuckleball as their primary pitch out of the thousands of pitchers who have pitched in Major League Baseball. Of the two dozen articles in the category before its premature deletion, all but three were described primarily in their articles as knuckleball pitchers and all had sources that described them as knuckleballers or knuckleball pitchers, and the overwhelming majority had as many as hundreds of sources describing them as knuckleballers. The obituaries of several of these individuals include the pitch in the title of the articles, such as for
Jesse Haines (
"Jesse Haines, Pitcher, Dies at 85; Hall of Famer Won 210 Games; Known for Knuckleball") and
Joe Niekro (
"Joe Niekro, a Master of the Knuckleball, Is Dead at 61"), while
Phil Niekro's plaque at the
Baseball Hall of Fame defines him as a "Preeminent knuckleball pitcher" (
see here). Knuckleball pitchers are not only described as such, but someone who throws the knuckleball is often considered a bit quirky;
Jim Bouton's seminal tell-all Ball Four is subtitled My Life and Hard Times Throwing the Knuckleball in the Big Leagues. These individuals are not just baseball players or pitchers; They are strongly defined as knuckleball pitchers. I invite anyone interested in a start on the few dozen sources I was able to find in a brief search and a link to articles to review
User:Alansohn/Knuckleball pitchers. The category should not include all pitchers who have ever thrown a knuckleball, as stated in Neyer's book, the category should focus on those "who would not have been in the majors without his knuckleball, or whose knuckleball was considered his best pitch, at least for a time."
Alansohn (
talk)
14:10, 17 April 2009 (UTC)reply
Keep. Having read the above information, and knowing the things I know about knuckleball pitchers, this is definitely a category worthy of existence. Many knuckleballers are known simply as that name: primarily by their pitch, rather than the fact that they are pitchers (of course, the same can be said for some
sinkerballers too).
KV5(
Talk •
Phils)16:01, 17 April 2009 (UTC)reply
Comment. Due to the effort required to master the knuckleball, a pitcher who relies on it typically throws almost entirely knuckleballs, and as such it is a defining characteristic of the player. The category should be reserved for players who do rely entirely on the knuckleball, and not pitchers who might throw the occasionally knuckler in their mix.
Isaac Lin (
talk)
17:02, 17 April 2009 (UTC)reply
Keep - Notwithstanding my suggestion re using a navbox, I would have no problem with keeping this as a Category. Not only are these guys a "rare breed" (as I said above), their use in a game presents special problems for catchers, as well as opportunities for baserunners, due to the impossibility of predicting the flight paths of their pitches. (Forty-plus years later, I still have vivid memories of radio broadcaster
Vin Scully's word pictures of these pitches "dancing around like a butterfly". :)
Cgingold (
talk)
19:57, 17 April 2009 (UTC)reply
Comment - After reading all the comments on this subject, trying to "define" a defining characteristic when referring to pitchers who are primarily known for throwing a particular pitch is still not very clear.
1. Under the definition above: pitchers who throw just one pitch predominately, a pitch that is hard to master, and is only thrown by a select few pitchers, are the defining characteristics. Even if read strictly, do only knuckballs fall under that umbrella?
2. If read "liberally", all pitches are hard to master, and more than a select few pitchers are defined by the types of pitches they throw, i.e. Nolan Ryan (fastball), Bert Blyleven (curveball), Bruce Sutter (split-finger), Orel Hershisher (sinker) just to name a few.
3. Many pre-1900 pitchers didn't throw any other pitches beside a fastball, but only a select few were defined by that pitch, i.e. Matt Kilroy. After 1900 example, Walter Johnson threw only fastballs.
4. If hall-of-fame plaques are taken into account, Nolan Ryan's "overpowering fastball", Amos Rusie's "fireball king", Walter Johnson's "fastest ball pitcher in history", Goose Gossage's "exploding fastball", etc. are under the umbrella. Candy Cummings is in the hall just because he supposedly invented the curveball, not for being a particularly great pitcher, but one thing seems clear to me, that all these pitchers are defined by the pitch that they primarily threw.
The problem of course being that once the categories are created there is no reasonable way to limit their contents. Any pitcher who ever threw a knuckle ball will be catted as a knuckleballer, everyone who ever threw a curveball as a curveballer and so on. Sportspeople in particular tend to pick up a lot of categories and every one added for something like "he threw a certain pitch" or "he batted left-handed" or
he hit 600 home runs or
was in the 30-30 club or 40-40 club or whatever other arbitrary grouping baseball fans throw together makes the overall categorization scheme more cluttered and less useful.
Otto4711 (
talk)
21:04, 17 April 2009 (UTC)reply
The dreaded slippery slope, a flaw that is a systemic problem of the category system, not of this particular category. To provide a counterexample, how do we manage to limit the addition of programs to
Category:LGBT-related television episodes, which passed near unanimously at CfD with your participation just a few months ago at
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 November 18#Category:LGBT-related television episodes, and which has inclusion criteria far more muddled than this one could ever be, including "episodes of television series that are not generally about LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender)-related issues that substantially cover such issues"? How do we know a show is generally not LGBT-related? How do we know an episode "substantially cover[s]" these issues? How do we manage to control this category -- including only those episodes that meet the squishily-defined criteria and carefully excluding all that don't -- here and in whatever other arbitrary grouping LGBT fans throw together that makes the overall categorization scheme uncluttered and more useful (a sentence that I could only write by paraphrasing yours)? How is it that it works successfully there, but that you believe that it simply can never work here? Any guidance you can offer on how we can manage to keep
Category:LGBT-related television episodes in control will be most helpful in implementing the exact same slippery slope prevention program here. Applying an objective standard for addressing the slippery slope issue in consistent fashion across all categories will help dispel the notion that this is just an arbitrary popularity contest.
Alansohn (
talk)
21:48, 17 April 2009 (UTC)reply
If you want to re-nominate the LGBT eps category, feel free. Of course you won't, because you would much rather have it around to drag out in one unrelated CFD after another in hopes that someday someone will pay attention to you instead of actually taking action to improve the category system. You're not actually interested in the overall system; you're only interested in opportunistically imposing your views.
Otto4711 (
talk)
14:21, 18 April 2009 (UTC)reply
Even if you had not nominated the LGBT-related category for deletion, I would not have, as the decision there is so clearcut as to allowing subjectivity and ignoring a lack of slippery slope prevention. While you will often disagree with me on interpretation of policy, I have been rather consistent in attempting to develop an overall structure in which categories that aid navigation for readers are retained, and have done my best to apply these standards in a consistent fashion across all categories. As both you and I agreed with the resounding consensus set with
Category:LGBT-related television episodes, I find it extremely difficult to understand why that one should be kept and this one shouldn't under any possible consistent interpretation of Wikipedia policy on categories. The question is not why I'm not starting a CfD for the
Category:LGBT-related television episodes (I didn't want it deleted before and I don't know), it's why you would be so vehemently opposed to this one while so active in support of
Category:LGBT-related television episodes. Any guidance you could offer us here on a consistent reading of policy that could be applied across the board to all categories would be appreciated.
Alansohn (
talk)
01:42, 19 April 2009 (UTC)reply
Keep - per the reasons described so well by
Alansohn. Throwing the knuckleball is a defining characteristic for the few pitchers who master it, and no other baseball pitch is really like that. Yes, some pitchers are known for the fastball or curve or sinker, but it's almost always part of a reportoire, whereas most knuckleball pitchers rely on it almost exclusively. And if the contents need to be limited (for example, to avoid including pitchers who only experimented with the pitch), a note at the top of the Category page should work. In addition to the sources that Alansohn listed, I'll mention a chapter on the history of knuckleball pitchers in Craig Wright's The Diamond Appraised.BRMo (
talk)
01:38, 18 April 2009 (UTC)reply
In addition to what I've already said (I'll try not to repeat debate points), I can see the points raised on both sides, the one sticking point with me is the appearance that Knuckballs are somehow more special because they are the most difficult pitch to master. That doesn't mean a mastered knuckleball is more effective than an average, but well placed, fastball. I can concede that trying to manage a fastball, curve, slider category can be difficult to manage because of subjectivity. There is one pitch that does seem to qualify under all the above requirements, the spitball was used as the primary pitch for a select few pitchers who mastered it, and there is a finite amount of pitchers who legally threw it, because it has been illegal for what 80+ years? And a disclaimer could also be placed at the top of category page, defining it so that it keeps the Gaylord Perry's out.Neonblaktalk - 13:49, 18 April 2009 (UTC)reply
Pitchers who would be defined as knuckleballers are those who throw nearly 100% knuckleballs, which is virtually without parallel for pitchers who do not rely on the knuckleball (and who do more than make a brief coffee stop in the majors). In today's game, Mariano Rivera is an example of someone who throws nothing but cut fastballs to lefties, but he throws other pitches to righties. Now that Pitch F/X data is available, what a pitcher throws can be categorized quantitatively, so clear defining lines can be drawn.
Isaac Lin (
talk)
15:50, 18 April 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:Quotes
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 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:Songs criticizing George W. Bush administration
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 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:Moscow events
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 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:Microstates
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 both - They violate an even more clear rule of categorisation. If there is no
verifiablereliable source then there should be no categorisation. Neither article indicates actual usage of the term. (And after looking over some links on the talk pages, it's starting to look like this may actually fall afoul of
WP:NEO, and apparently,
WP:OR.) In any case, if some geographic authority (some
reliable source) is found which labels these this term, then feel free to
WP:DRV in order to allow for assessment of the references, and consensus for eventual restoration. (Per guidelines at DRV concerning "new information".) But until such is found, this would seem to fall under
WP:OR,
WP:NEO, and, most importantly
WP:V. -
jc3712:47, 25 April 2009 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Delete. It is a POV and ultimately an arbitrary decision to classify any particular state as a "microstate". The articles
Microstate and
European microstates make this abundantly clear.
Microstate defines the term as "a sovereign state having a very small population or very small land area, but usually both".
European microstates mentions several states that are "usually" included, then mentions 3 others that "share certain features as well". How small do either population or land area (or both) have to be to be included in the category? The words "very" and "usually" in the article discussions are tip-offs that this is not amendable to categorization. Any cut-off will be arbitrary, as there is no "official list" of microstates. The articles take the correct approach by listing small states which are sometimes considered to be microstates. This is all we can do, really. See
WP:OC#ARBITRARY.
Good Ol’factory(talk)00:35, 17 April 2009 (UTC)reply
Keep both to correspond to their parent articles. As with all categories in Wikipedia, the inclusion criteria is based on reference to reliable and verifiable sources. That the inclusion criteria are not based on a hard and fast definition or that there is no "official list" has never been a valid criteria for deletion, nor has it been required for
Category:Fictional bartenders or
Category:LGBT-related television episodes, which describes its inclusion criteria in terms far vaguer than used here.
Alansohn (
talk)
03:19, 17 April 2009 (UTC)reply
WP:CLN (which I believe you're aware of) says, "Unless it is self-evident and uncontroversial that something belongs in a category, it should not be put into a category". Since inclusion here would rely solely on sources, it would never be "self-evident" that an article belongs in the category. Thus, a list would be preferable to a category in this case.
Good Ol’factory(talk)03:33, 17 April 2009 (UTC)reply
You can feel free to cut the patronizing bit and make an effort to act civilly. I looked at the entries in the category and find every one to be self-evident. I wouldn't quibble with any of the entries, nor are there any microstates that appear missing. From looking at the category I know why all of the entries are included, something I couldn't possibly state for
Category:LGBT-related television episodes. If there is any controversy about microstate status, I have yet to see it.
Alansohn (
talk)
14:15, 17 April 2009 (UTC)reply
There is no objectivity standard for categories. It would limit the scope of the category system significantly, but we somehow manage to have
Category:LGBT-related television episodes which has inclusion standards that are completely subjective. As to your prior remarks, I'm not sure what you were trying to imply, but I think you would acknowledge that you know full well that I am fully aware of
WP:CLN and that your statement "which I believe you're aware of" offers nothing about
WP:CLN other than incivility. I would hope that you would apply policy on civility on a more consistent basis.
Alansohn (
talk)
21:59, 17 April 2009 (UTC)reply
I think you're reading things into my comments that aren't there. I said I believed you are aware of it because I've seen that you like to quote it and it seems to be a popular guideline with you, so I was just highlighting the fact that this statement came from that same guideline. No incivility was intended, so you may want to take my word on that as a means of assuming good faith. Objectivity is a standard for categories, if by objectivity we mean non-arbitrary. If we're selecting a specific cut-off line (or adopting someone's else's) it's arbitrary: see
WP:OC#ARBITRARY. Why cut it off at 300,000 people rather than 400,000? Because it's an arbitrary decision.
Good Ol’factory(talk)01:00, 18 April 2009 (UTC)reply
The problem to me seems to be that the sources are choosing to "draw a line somewhere", which makes it an arbitrary classification, regardless of where they choose to draw the line. Honestly, I've no idea why
Category:LGBT-related television episodes is relevant to this discussion. It may be an example of another problematic category, but not really that directly relevant here.
Good Ol’factory(talk)01:04, 18 April 2009 (UTC)reply
As one who actively organizes the taxonomy of CfDs and uses these precedents on a rather frequent basis (most often as part of an argument for deleting based on precedent),
Category:LGBT-related television episodes set a rather important precedent in which the issue of complete subjectivity was raised and decidedly ignored as an argument for deletion.
Alansohn (
talk)
01:50, 19 April 2009 (UTC)reply
Yes, and like any lawyer worth his salt I am able to sift the wheat from the chaff in analyzing case law. The decision to keep the category hardly stands as a "precedent" for all that you claim it could. But even if it did, it would seem to be an anomaly more than anything else. You need more than one instance for a very strong precedent, and the principles you claim it stands for are contradicted by many statements in the guidelines and by dozens of other cases, so all in all it's not terribly relevant.
Good Ol’factory(talk)11:01, 20 April 2009 (UTC)reply
The phrase "worth his salt" is telling, as
Pliny the Elder cites the use of salt to pay the wages of Roman soldiers as the derivation for the word that has come to us as "salary". All the lawyers I know recognize that case law and precedent have nothing to do with wheat or chaff, but have a great deal to do with which side you're arguing and who is paying the bills or their salary. As we have little money flowing through here, it appears that personal preference plays a greater role than policy. I have attempted to craft a pattern of voting under which I support the continued existence of categories that aid navigation across similar articles for readers and vote to delete those that don't, which is why I believe that this category, as well as both
Category:LGBT-related television episodes and
Category:Knuckleball pitchers, should be retained. I have asked Otto for a consistent theory as to why he voted to keep the far more subjective
Category:LGBT-related television episodes (which I also support), but delete the other two, which triggered the administratively-ignored outburst of incivility below. Can you offer a justification for objectively determining when results are an "anomaly" and can be ignored as being "not terribly relevant"? Can you offer a consistent explanation under your theory of categories to explain the results at the CfDs in question? Can you explain why the justification for my vote is so wrong that you have needed to respond several times to my vote, carefully pointing out policies that you know I am fully aware of, when I have offered a clear explanation and multiple sources to support my position and it is clear that I am unswayed by your repeated arguments?
Alansohn (
talk)
14:14, 20 April 2009 (UTC)reply
Sorry, I'm an academic lawyer, so I don't have "sides" to argue on behalf of. The anomalous nature of the case is indicated by the substantial number of cases that contradict it, coupled with the guidelines that contradict it. I see I'm repeating myself here ... I'm not trying to convince you, Alansohn, in "responding" to your comments, and I'm not doing it for your benefit. It's not important to me whether or not you even read them or think about them. I realise that "convincing" you may be futile, and that is not my goal. I'm responding to them to get onto the record objections to your reasoning, so they may be considered by a closer. That's pretty much why I make comments at CfD. If anyone is responding to another user just to score "points" somehow in some other sense, they need to get a life.
Good Ol’factory(talk)22:01, 20 April 2009 (UTC)reply
But you do have sides you argue on behalf of. You take positions on your own behalf in many CfDs and pass judgment on others. If you're playing to the crowd or the closing administrator, why bother responding to me, and why use the word "you" so frequently to respond directly to stances I take. Why not just add a comment or (even better) try file a far more thorough brief when you submit your case that anticipates the likely responses. Any attorney worth his salt would have a strong acquaintance with the motions that the opposing side will be filing and the case they'll be making. I will also point out that my additional comments often provide additional evidence, which has been shown to actually sway voters and closing admins; repeating the same arguments repeatedly in response to my comments will do little to sway me or anyone other than the most doe-eyed newbie. As you come from an academic background, I am still surprised by the lack of any discernible theory of law to cover the discrepant stances taken on various cases and all those that appear to have wildly discrepant results, and you can't brush all of them off as anomalies. And any explanation on why Otto's blatant incivility is routinely overlooked would also be appreciated. I would assume that telling another editor to "shut up" falls under uncivil under all theories of incivility, and that's just him warming up.
Alansohn (
talk)
02:05, 21 April 2009 (UTC)reply
To answer your questions/inquiries/comments/allegations in turn: (1) I was referring to my work in law, not my work in WP. (2) because it's easier that way and makes more sense in context; (3) same as (2). This isn't a court case, after all, nor do I intend to treat it like one; (4) this is not really the place to discuss my "discernible theory of law"; even if it were, it's possible it may not make sense to you, unless you've studied law or otherwise done a bit of reading on the theory/philosophy of common law; I have a hard enough time getting people to understand and believe me when I say no incivility was intended, let alone delving into the bowels of legal realism and positivism; in any case, I don't find the cases to be "widely discrepant" because as I said before I don't think they stand for the things you claim they do stand for—they are insufficient precedent for what you are claiming, mostly because what you claim for them are not even discussed by the participants; (5) how do you know I or any other editor "routinely overlooks" Otto's incivility? For all you know, I've already dealt with the issue over email, or I'm dealing with the issue right now over e-mail, or I'm prepping some on-WP comments/actions as we speak, or, or, or .... It's kind of a pointless game to try to guess at how others regard certain behaviour. (6) All I can suggest for your personal feelings is that if another editor is rude to you personally, ignore him. (7) This is all quite off-topic at this point so I suggest if you want to continue down this path we use the talk page.
Good Ol’factory(talk)03:03, 21 April 2009 (UTC)reply
Otto, your incivility problem and your inability to deal with it yourself or to have anyone who can deal with it appropriately is despicable. A statement that "so why not shut up about it" demonstrates a complete and utter inability to act appropriately with other editors. I discussed my reasoning at the CfD you created and look forward to at least one of the admins who frequents these CfDs to deal with your persistent incivility once and for all.
Alansohn (
talk)
01:50, 19 April 2009 (UTC)reply
Comment -- A microstate is an entity whose owner has self-declared its independence. No one else recognises its status. This is an interesting phenomenon, though I am not sure that any of the subjects are actually notable. Small city states, such as Monaco, San Merino, Danzig and Vatican City are a different phenomenon altogether and should not appear. The category may need a definition as a headnote to ensure that only microstates and not small nations appear.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
00:20, 20 April 2009 (UTC)reply
keep both being so very small is certainly a defining characteristic of these countries--possibly their only truly defining characteristic. Categories are to aid in navigation to articles on subjects having a common characteristic and these do so.
Hmains (
talk)
02:39, 22 April 2009 (UTC)reply
By taking a broader view than just looking at two isolated discussions in a spider's-eye view. Ask, which approach is followed more often in similar cases?
Good Ol’factory(talk)11:05, 22 April 2009 (UTC)reply
All lists do a better job and allow navigation. Categories can never list additional details or provide for sorting, etc. That lists can do things a category can't is a design feature, not a reason for deletion. Why does the capability of lists have to do with a reason for deleting this category?
Alansohn (
talk)
22:30, 23 April 2009 (UTC)reply
I didn't say the capability of lists was my reason. These particular lists do a better job than these particular categories. Not all lists are better than categories. --
Kbdank7114:52, 24 April 2009 (UTC)reply
Twist your words? (straight from your edit summary
here). Other than "per Johnbod", who seemed far more conflicted on this issue, your sole reason for deletion was "The lists do a better job and allow navigation" which leargely matches Johnbod's sole reason of "the list at
Microstate has much more detail, and allows navigation" (note: All of these are direct quotes). As
WP:CLN states "Developers of these redundant systems should not compete against each other in a destructive manner, such as by nominating the work of their competitors to be deleted just because they overlap." Categories can never do many of the things that lists can. What is it about the inherent design of the category system in Wikipedia that would justify retention of all other categories that suffer from the same flaw, while deleting this one? I'd love to hear a criteria -- subjective, objective, anything -- that would explain how and when a particular category should be deleted because of the perceived inherent superiority of lists, and let's test that approach on this category here. That way it would look less like a matter of arbitrary personal preference.
Alansohn (
talk)
15:14, 24 April 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:Rugby union Number 8s
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.
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Almost, but not quite, speediable. No other rugby union position category has the position capitalised, and the relevant section heading in
Rugby union positions refers to the "number eight", which is also the usual spelling in the print media (here in New Zealand, at least, though I suspect it's true worldwide).
Grutness...wha?00:22, 17 April 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:Jewish assassins
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.
Israeli. We normally classify people who lived places before they became independent with the independent country, like
Soghomon Tehlirian who was born in the Ottoman Empire (in the area that was part considered "Armenia", although various machinations at the Paris Peace Conference dumped the place into Turkey, did his assassination in German, and died in the USA. Categorized as Armenian.
Leonid Nikolaev was born in the Russian Empire, but did his dirty work for and in the Soviet Union and died there. Categorized as Russian.
Jan Kubiš was born in the Austrian Empire, lived in Czechoslovakia after independence did his deed in the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia, and died there. Classified as Czech (probably should be Czechoslovak, as we have that category as well).
Herschel Grynszpan was born in the German Empire of parents who had come from Poland, after WWI they became Polish citizens, he did his deed in France, and died in a concentration camp - may never have been to Poland. Categorized as Polish.
Eligiusz Niewiadomski born in the Russian Empire (Warsaw), did his deed in independent Poland following WWI. Categorized as Polish. also
Rosli Dhobi, born, assassined, and died in the British Crown Colony of Sarawak, before Malaysia was formed (1963) or even its predecessor Malaya (1948). Categorized as Malaysian.
Carlossuarez46 (
talk)
00:51, 17 April 2009 (UTC)reply
Note: further this practice is used outside of the context of assassins: notable Americans who died before the establishment of the United States (1789) are classified as "Americans",
Hubert Nathaniel Critchlow, the great labor leader in British Guinea (pre-independence) is classified as Guyanese, etc. etc.
Carlossuarez46 (
talk)
00:56, 17 April 2009 (UTC)reply
I could not agree more that this category is every bit as appropriate within the categorization system as the three suggested parents, two of which have been deleted and the third of which is
on its way out.
Otto4711 (
talk)
08:33, 22 April 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:Visitor attractions in Greater Miami, Florida
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.
Support rename The use of "Greater Miami" seems rather limited, and there do not appear to be any attractions here situated outside of
Miami-Dade County, Florida. The proposed title provides a name more consistent with other such categories.
Alansohn (
talk)
03:33, 19 April 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.
SMSAs
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.
Nominator's rationale: In the mass renames of "City" to "City, State" categories, we haven't been giving SMSAs state names. In the latter category, I had that renamed incorrectly in
this nomination; I can see breaking that category up as well, and in that case it would need the state name.--
Mike Selinker (
talk)
22:56, 17 April 2009 (UTC)reply
Note to closer. I think that this comment was prior to the change in the nomination when the city, state form was being proposed. It was changed after this position was made and now that these are for metropolitan areas, this oppose for Charlotte may not be an issue.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
05:59, 27 April 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:Pre-Tertiary Education in Greater St. Louis
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 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:Ovation Award winners and nominees
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.
Delete / Rename if kept As currently worded,
Wikipedia:OCAT#Award recipients limits awards to those such as "
Category:Nobel laureates and
Category:Academy Award winners", an arbitrarily-high standard that is not evidenced by recent closes on these awards. What should be included are national awards and those granted locally that receive national recognition. The
Ovation Awards are described as "a Southern California award for excellence in theatre", and from what I see receive limited coverage outside Southern California. I couldn't find a single mention of the award in The New York Times or other East Coast publications. While most of the articles in this category do mention the receipt of Ovation Awards, all of them seem to be rather far down in the article. Grouping productions and actors in a single
Category:Ovation Award winners and nominees seems to lump too much together and adds little to navigation. Under the existing Wikipedia:OCAT#Award recipients standard (which seems to be unobserved by consensus) there would hardly any award categories, certainly not this one. Under this proposed rewrite of the standard, which seems to more clearly reflect reality, this category would be deleted as well.
Alansohn (
talk)
22:42, 17 April 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:Organizations by country
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:Nothing was tagged for nomination, but from the discussion it is apparent that there is no consensus to standardiZ/Se the spelling across all categories, and probably a consensus to keep things as they are. If any particular category name is thought to be inappropriately spelled, it would probably be best treated with an individual nomination.
Good Ol’factory(talk)01:41, 23 April 2009 (UTC)reply
Standard procedure is to use UK spelling for other European countries, since the only English-speaking countries to use US spelling are in the western hemisphere. So the Albanian one should be "organisations". The overall one, and any for use as a worldwide over-category, can easily remain "organizations" however.
Grutness...wha?01:37, 18 April 2009 (UTC)reply
Grutness: I cannot find mention of this in
WP:ENGVAR. Is there a guideline or policy on this? For instance, in Norway it is just as common to write US English as UK English. There is no "official" English spelling in the country, both are taught in the schools and despite pre-19th century historical ties to the UK, most popular culture comes from the US. Arsenikk(talk)15:08, 22 April 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:Knuckleball pitchers
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:Listify and Delete - And since
the list already exists, this can be deleted. In weighing the arguments, the ones that carried the most weight were the note that this would be better presented in a navbox and/or a list (even several who weren't opposed to keeping suggested this as an option), and the comments that this is similar to other types of OCAT, such as performers by performance. The latter argument indicating that this is not a case where a category should co-exist with a list and/or navbox. Editors should, of course, feel free to create such a navbox at editorial discretion. -
jc3712:32, 25 April 2009 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Delete. This is the only category that adresses those who are known to throw a particular baseball
pitch. I am of the opinion that
knuckleball pitchers can be notable, but does it need a category? I say that a collection of famous knuckleball pitchers can be listed. Or... categories for all the other pitches would need to be created for consistency.Neonblaktalk - 05:29, 6 April 2009 (UTC)reply
Comment - It's certainly true that knuckleballers are a rare breed, but I'm not sure a category makes good sense. I think probably a navbox template is the right way to go for this.
Cgingold (
talk)
05:51, 6 April 2009 (UTC)reply
Delete - The information about pitchers known to throw the knuckleball is of encyclopedic interest, but it can be (and apparently already is) included in
Knuckleball. No additional value is derived from also having a category for these pitchers. --
Orlady (
talk)
17:04, 6 April 2009 (UTC)reply
Possibly keep not my field, but I though particular pitchers were particularly and perhaps primarily known for this? DGG (
talk)
03:31, 9 April 2009 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Kbdank7112:50, 17 April 2009 (UTC)reply
Keep per Alansohn's excellent list, which establishes to my satisfaction (as one who knows nothing about baseball) that this is a defining characteristic for a pitcher. (It is stretching 'performance by performer' - or indeed 'performer by performance' - beyond breaking point to apply it here; also the article
Knuckleball only includes a handful of practitioners.)
Occuli (
talk)
13:29, 17 April 2009 (UTC)reply
Keep. Not only is the knuckleball a rare pitch and one difficult to throw properly, it often requires the team employing the pitcher who throws one to make specific adjustments to their personnel and their equipment. There are catchers out there who are, or have been, known for their ability to catch a knuckleball (
Doug Mirabelli is a recent example). This certifies it to my mind as a characteristic much more defining than simply being left-handed. -
Dewelar (
talk)
13:39, 17 April 2009 (UTC)reply
Keep I had seen the CfD the morning it was closed and not had a chance to consider the nomination and gather information about the definingness of the category. The Neyer/James Guide to Pitchers by
Rob Neyer lists some 80 pitchers who used the knuckleball as their primary pitch out of the thousands of pitchers who have pitched in Major League Baseball. Of the two dozen articles in the category before its premature deletion, all but three were described primarily in their articles as knuckleball pitchers and all had sources that described them as knuckleballers or knuckleball pitchers, and the overwhelming majority had as many as hundreds of sources describing them as knuckleballers. The obituaries of several of these individuals include the pitch in the title of the articles, such as for
Jesse Haines (
"Jesse Haines, Pitcher, Dies at 85; Hall of Famer Won 210 Games; Known for Knuckleball") and
Joe Niekro (
"Joe Niekro, a Master of the Knuckleball, Is Dead at 61"), while
Phil Niekro's plaque at the
Baseball Hall of Fame defines him as a "Preeminent knuckleball pitcher" (
see here). Knuckleball pitchers are not only described as such, but someone who throws the knuckleball is often considered a bit quirky;
Jim Bouton's seminal tell-all Ball Four is subtitled My Life and Hard Times Throwing the Knuckleball in the Big Leagues. These individuals are not just baseball players or pitchers; They are strongly defined as knuckleball pitchers. I invite anyone interested in a start on the few dozen sources I was able to find in a brief search and a link to articles to review
User:Alansohn/Knuckleball pitchers. The category should not include all pitchers who have ever thrown a knuckleball, as stated in Neyer's book, the category should focus on those "who would not have been in the majors without his knuckleball, or whose knuckleball was considered his best pitch, at least for a time."
Alansohn (
talk)
14:10, 17 April 2009 (UTC)reply
Keep. Having read the above information, and knowing the things I know about knuckleball pitchers, this is definitely a category worthy of existence. Many knuckleballers are known simply as that name: primarily by their pitch, rather than the fact that they are pitchers (of course, the same can be said for some
sinkerballers too).
KV5(
Talk •
Phils)16:01, 17 April 2009 (UTC)reply
Comment. Due to the effort required to master the knuckleball, a pitcher who relies on it typically throws almost entirely knuckleballs, and as such it is a defining characteristic of the player. The category should be reserved for players who do rely entirely on the knuckleball, and not pitchers who might throw the occasionally knuckler in their mix.
Isaac Lin (
talk)
17:02, 17 April 2009 (UTC)reply
Keep - Notwithstanding my suggestion re using a navbox, I would have no problem with keeping this as a Category. Not only are these guys a "rare breed" (as I said above), their use in a game presents special problems for catchers, as well as opportunities for baserunners, due to the impossibility of predicting the flight paths of their pitches. (Forty-plus years later, I still have vivid memories of radio broadcaster
Vin Scully's word pictures of these pitches "dancing around like a butterfly". :)
Cgingold (
talk)
19:57, 17 April 2009 (UTC)reply
Comment - After reading all the comments on this subject, trying to "define" a defining characteristic when referring to pitchers who are primarily known for throwing a particular pitch is still not very clear.
1. Under the definition above: pitchers who throw just one pitch predominately, a pitch that is hard to master, and is only thrown by a select few pitchers, are the defining characteristics. Even if read strictly, do only knuckballs fall under that umbrella?
2. If read "liberally", all pitches are hard to master, and more than a select few pitchers are defined by the types of pitches they throw, i.e. Nolan Ryan (fastball), Bert Blyleven (curveball), Bruce Sutter (split-finger), Orel Hershisher (sinker) just to name a few.
3. Many pre-1900 pitchers didn't throw any other pitches beside a fastball, but only a select few were defined by that pitch, i.e. Matt Kilroy. After 1900 example, Walter Johnson threw only fastballs.
4. If hall-of-fame plaques are taken into account, Nolan Ryan's "overpowering fastball", Amos Rusie's "fireball king", Walter Johnson's "fastest ball pitcher in history", Goose Gossage's "exploding fastball", etc. are under the umbrella. Candy Cummings is in the hall just because he supposedly invented the curveball, not for being a particularly great pitcher, but one thing seems clear to me, that all these pitchers are defined by the pitch that they primarily threw.
The problem of course being that once the categories are created there is no reasonable way to limit their contents. Any pitcher who ever threw a knuckle ball will be catted as a knuckleballer, everyone who ever threw a curveball as a curveballer and so on. Sportspeople in particular tend to pick up a lot of categories and every one added for something like "he threw a certain pitch" or "he batted left-handed" or
he hit 600 home runs or
was in the 30-30 club or 40-40 club or whatever other arbitrary grouping baseball fans throw together makes the overall categorization scheme more cluttered and less useful.
Otto4711 (
talk)
21:04, 17 April 2009 (UTC)reply
The dreaded slippery slope, a flaw that is a systemic problem of the category system, not of this particular category. To provide a counterexample, how do we manage to limit the addition of programs to
Category:LGBT-related television episodes, which passed near unanimously at CfD with your participation just a few months ago at
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 November 18#Category:LGBT-related television episodes, and which has inclusion criteria far more muddled than this one could ever be, including "episodes of television series that are not generally about LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender)-related issues that substantially cover such issues"? How do we know a show is generally not LGBT-related? How do we know an episode "substantially cover[s]" these issues? How do we manage to control this category -- including only those episodes that meet the squishily-defined criteria and carefully excluding all that don't -- here and in whatever other arbitrary grouping LGBT fans throw together that makes the overall categorization scheme uncluttered and more useful (a sentence that I could only write by paraphrasing yours)? How is it that it works successfully there, but that you believe that it simply can never work here? Any guidance you can offer on how we can manage to keep
Category:LGBT-related television episodes in control will be most helpful in implementing the exact same slippery slope prevention program here. Applying an objective standard for addressing the slippery slope issue in consistent fashion across all categories will help dispel the notion that this is just an arbitrary popularity contest.
Alansohn (
talk)
21:48, 17 April 2009 (UTC)reply
If you want to re-nominate the LGBT eps category, feel free. Of course you won't, because you would much rather have it around to drag out in one unrelated CFD after another in hopes that someday someone will pay attention to you instead of actually taking action to improve the category system. You're not actually interested in the overall system; you're only interested in opportunistically imposing your views.
Otto4711 (
talk)
14:21, 18 April 2009 (UTC)reply
Even if you had not nominated the LGBT-related category for deletion, I would not have, as the decision there is so clearcut as to allowing subjectivity and ignoring a lack of slippery slope prevention. While you will often disagree with me on interpretation of policy, I have been rather consistent in attempting to develop an overall structure in which categories that aid navigation for readers are retained, and have done my best to apply these standards in a consistent fashion across all categories. As both you and I agreed with the resounding consensus set with
Category:LGBT-related television episodes, I find it extremely difficult to understand why that one should be kept and this one shouldn't under any possible consistent interpretation of Wikipedia policy on categories. The question is not why I'm not starting a CfD for the
Category:LGBT-related television episodes (I didn't want it deleted before and I don't know), it's why you would be so vehemently opposed to this one while so active in support of
Category:LGBT-related television episodes. Any guidance you could offer us here on a consistent reading of policy that could be applied across the board to all categories would be appreciated.
Alansohn (
talk)
01:42, 19 April 2009 (UTC)reply
Keep - per the reasons described so well by
Alansohn. Throwing the knuckleball is a defining characteristic for the few pitchers who master it, and no other baseball pitch is really like that. Yes, some pitchers are known for the fastball or curve or sinker, but it's almost always part of a reportoire, whereas most knuckleball pitchers rely on it almost exclusively. And if the contents need to be limited (for example, to avoid including pitchers who only experimented with the pitch), a note at the top of the Category page should work. In addition to the sources that Alansohn listed, I'll mention a chapter on the history of knuckleball pitchers in Craig Wright's The Diamond Appraised.BRMo (
talk)
01:38, 18 April 2009 (UTC)reply
In addition to what I've already said (I'll try not to repeat debate points), I can see the points raised on both sides, the one sticking point with me is the appearance that Knuckballs are somehow more special because they are the most difficult pitch to master. That doesn't mean a mastered knuckleball is more effective than an average, but well placed, fastball. I can concede that trying to manage a fastball, curve, slider category can be difficult to manage because of subjectivity. There is one pitch that does seem to qualify under all the above requirements, the spitball was used as the primary pitch for a select few pitchers who mastered it, and there is a finite amount of pitchers who legally threw it, because it has been illegal for what 80+ years? And a disclaimer could also be placed at the top of category page, defining it so that it keeps the Gaylord Perry's out.Neonblaktalk - 13:49, 18 April 2009 (UTC)reply
Pitchers who would be defined as knuckleballers are those who throw nearly 100% knuckleballs, which is virtually without parallel for pitchers who do not rely on the knuckleball (and who do more than make a brief coffee stop in the majors). In today's game, Mariano Rivera is an example of someone who throws nothing but cut fastballs to lefties, but he throws other pitches to righties. Now that Pitch F/X data is available, what a pitcher throws can be categorized quantitatively, so clear defining lines can be drawn.
Isaac Lin (
talk)
15:50, 18 April 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:Quotes
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 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:Songs criticizing George W. Bush administration
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 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:Moscow events
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 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:Microstates
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 both - They violate an even more clear rule of categorisation. If there is no
verifiablereliable source then there should be no categorisation. Neither article indicates actual usage of the term. (And after looking over some links on the talk pages, it's starting to look like this may actually fall afoul of
WP:NEO, and apparently,
WP:OR.) In any case, if some geographic authority (some
reliable source) is found which labels these this term, then feel free to
WP:DRV in order to allow for assessment of the references, and consensus for eventual restoration. (Per guidelines at DRV concerning "new information".) But until such is found, this would seem to fall under
WP:OR,
WP:NEO, and, most importantly
WP:V. -
jc3712:47, 25 April 2009 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Delete. It is a POV and ultimately an arbitrary decision to classify any particular state as a "microstate". The articles
Microstate and
European microstates make this abundantly clear.
Microstate defines the term as "a sovereign state having a very small population or very small land area, but usually both".
European microstates mentions several states that are "usually" included, then mentions 3 others that "share certain features as well". How small do either population or land area (or both) have to be to be included in the category? The words "very" and "usually" in the article discussions are tip-offs that this is not amendable to categorization. Any cut-off will be arbitrary, as there is no "official list" of microstates. The articles take the correct approach by listing small states which are sometimes considered to be microstates. This is all we can do, really. See
WP:OC#ARBITRARY.
Good Ol’factory(talk)00:35, 17 April 2009 (UTC)reply
Keep both to correspond to their parent articles. As with all categories in Wikipedia, the inclusion criteria is based on reference to reliable and verifiable sources. That the inclusion criteria are not based on a hard and fast definition or that there is no "official list" has never been a valid criteria for deletion, nor has it been required for
Category:Fictional bartenders or
Category:LGBT-related television episodes, which describes its inclusion criteria in terms far vaguer than used here.
Alansohn (
talk)
03:19, 17 April 2009 (UTC)reply
WP:CLN (which I believe you're aware of) says, "Unless it is self-evident and uncontroversial that something belongs in a category, it should not be put into a category". Since inclusion here would rely solely on sources, it would never be "self-evident" that an article belongs in the category. Thus, a list would be preferable to a category in this case.
Good Ol’factory(talk)03:33, 17 April 2009 (UTC)reply
You can feel free to cut the patronizing bit and make an effort to act civilly. I looked at the entries in the category and find every one to be self-evident. I wouldn't quibble with any of the entries, nor are there any microstates that appear missing. From looking at the category I know why all of the entries are included, something I couldn't possibly state for
Category:LGBT-related television episodes. If there is any controversy about microstate status, I have yet to see it.
Alansohn (
talk)
14:15, 17 April 2009 (UTC)reply
There is no objectivity standard for categories. It would limit the scope of the category system significantly, but we somehow manage to have
Category:LGBT-related television episodes which has inclusion standards that are completely subjective. As to your prior remarks, I'm not sure what you were trying to imply, but I think you would acknowledge that you know full well that I am fully aware of
WP:CLN and that your statement "which I believe you're aware of" offers nothing about
WP:CLN other than incivility. I would hope that you would apply policy on civility on a more consistent basis.
Alansohn (
talk)
21:59, 17 April 2009 (UTC)reply
I think you're reading things into my comments that aren't there. I said I believed you are aware of it because I've seen that you like to quote it and it seems to be a popular guideline with you, so I was just highlighting the fact that this statement came from that same guideline. No incivility was intended, so you may want to take my word on that as a means of assuming good faith. Objectivity is a standard for categories, if by objectivity we mean non-arbitrary. If we're selecting a specific cut-off line (or adopting someone's else's) it's arbitrary: see
WP:OC#ARBITRARY. Why cut it off at 300,000 people rather than 400,000? Because it's an arbitrary decision.
Good Ol’factory(talk)01:00, 18 April 2009 (UTC)reply
The problem to me seems to be that the sources are choosing to "draw a line somewhere", which makes it an arbitrary classification, regardless of where they choose to draw the line. Honestly, I've no idea why
Category:LGBT-related television episodes is relevant to this discussion. It may be an example of another problematic category, but not really that directly relevant here.
Good Ol’factory(talk)01:04, 18 April 2009 (UTC)reply
As one who actively organizes the taxonomy of CfDs and uses these precedents on a rather frequent basis (most often as part of an argument for deleting based on precedent),
Category:LGBT-related television episodes set a rather important precedent in which the issue of complete subjectivity was raised and decidedly ignored as an argument for deletion.
Alansohn (
talk)
01:50, 19 April 2009 (UTC)reply
Yes, and like any lawyer worth his salt I am able to sift the wheat from the chaff in analyzing case law. The decision to keep the category hardly stands as a "precedent" for all that you claim it could. But even if it did, it would seem to be an anomaly more than anything else. You need more than one instance for a very strong precedent, and the principles you claim it stands for are contradicted by many statements in the guidelines and by dozens of other cases, so all in all it's not terribly relevant.
Good Ol’factory(talk)11:01, 20 April 2009 (UTC)reply
The phrase "worth his salt" is telling, as
Pliny the Elder cites the use of salt to pay the wages of Roman soldiers as the derivation for the word that has come to us as "salary". All the lawyers I know recognize that case law and precedent have nothing to do with wheat or chaff, but have a great deal to do with which side you're arguing and who is paying the bills or their salary. As we have little money flowing through here, it appears that personal preference plays a greater role than policy. I have attempted to craft a pattern of voting under which I support the continued existence of categories that aid navigation across similar articles for readers and vote to delete those that don't, which is why I believe that this category, as well as both
Category:LGBT-related television episodes and
Category:Knuckleball pitchers, should be retained. I have asked Otto for a consistent theory as to why he voted to keep the far more subjective
Category:LGBT-related television episodes (which I also support), but delete the other two, which triggered the administratively-ignored outburst of incivility below. Can you offer a justification for objectively determining when results are an "anomaly" and can be ignored as being "not terribly relevant"? Can you offer a consistent explanation under your theory of categories to explain the results at the CfDs in question? Can you explain why the justification for my vote is so wrong that you have needed to respond several times to my vote, carefully pointing out policies that you know I am fully aware of, when I have offered a clear explanation and multiple sources to support my position and it is clear that I am unswayed by your repeated arguments?
Alansohn (
talk)
14:14, 20 April 2009 (UTC)reply
Sorry, I'm an academic lawyer, so I don't have "sides" to argue on behalf of. The anomalous nature of the case is indicated by the substantial number of cases that contradict it, coupled with the guidelines that contradict it. I see I'm repeating myself here ... I'm not trying to convince you, Alansohn, in "responding" to your comments, and I'm not doing it for your benefit. It's not important to me whether or not you even read them or think about them. I realise that "convincing" you may be futile, and that is not my goal. I'm responding to them to get onto the record objections to your reasoning, so they may be considered by a closer. That's pretty much why I make comments at CfD. If anyone is responding to another user just to score "points" somehow in some other sense, they need to get a life.
Good Ol’factory(talk)22:01, 20 April 2009 (UTC)reply
But you do have sides you argue on behalf of. You take positions on your own behalf in many CfDs and pass judgment on others. If you're playing to the crowd or the closing administrator, why bother responding to me, and why use the word "you" so frequently to respond directly to stances I take. Why not just add a comment or (even better) try file a far more thorough brief when you submit your case that anticipates the likely responses. Any attorney worth his salt would have a strong acquaintance with the motions that the opposing side will be filing and the case they'll be making. I will also point out that my additional comments often provide additional evidence, which has been shown to actually sway voters and closing admins; repeating the same arguments repeatedly in response to my comments will do little to sway me or anyone other than the most doe-eyed newbie. As you come from an academic background, I am still surprised by the lack of any discernible theory of law to cover the discrepant stances taken on various cases and all those that appear to have wildly discrepant results, and you can't brush all of them off as anomalies. And any explanation on why Otto's blatant incivility is routinely overlooked would also be appreciated. I would assume that telling another editor to "shut up" falls under uncivil under all theories of incivility, and that's just him warming up.
Alansohn (
talk)
02:05, 21 April 2009 (UTC)reply
To answer your questions/inquiries/comments/allegations in turn: (1) I was referring to my work in law, not my work in WP. (2) because it's easier that way and makes more sense in context; (3) same as (2). This isn't a court case, after all, nor do I intend to treat it like one; (4) this is not really the place to discuss my "discernible theory of law"; even if it were, it's possible it may not make sense to you, unless you've studied law or otherwise done a bit of reading on the theory/philosophy of common law; I have a hard enough time getting people to understand and believe me when I say no incivility was intended, let alone delving into the bowels of legal realism and positivism; in any case, I don't find the cases to be "widely discrepant" because as I said before I don't think they stand for the things you claim they do stand for—they are insufficient precedent for what you are claiming, mostly because what you claim for them are not even discussed by the participants; (5) how do you know I or any other editor "routinely overlooks" Otto's incivility? For all you know, I've already dealt with the issue over email, or I'm dealing with the issue right now over e-mail, or I'm prepping some on-WP comments/actions as we speak, or, or, or .... It's kind of a pointless game to try to guess at how others regard certain behaviour. (6) All I can suggest for your personal feelings is that if another editor is rude to you personally, ignore him. (7) This is all quite off-topic at this point so I suggest if you want to continue down this path we use the talk page.
Good Ol’factory(talk)03:03, 21 April 2009 (UTC)reply
Otto, your incivility problem and your inability to deal with it yourself or to have anyone who can deal with it appropriately is despicable. A statement that "so why not shut up about it" demonstrates a complete and utter inability to act appropriately with other editors. I discussed my reasoning at the CfD you created and look forward to at least one of the admins who frequents these CfDs to deal with your persistent incivility once and for all.
Alansohn (
talk)
01:50, 19 April 2009 (UTC)reply
Comment -- A microstate is an entity whose owner has self-declared its independence. No one else recognises its status. This is an interesting phenomenon, though I am not sure that any of the subjects are actually notable. Small city states, such as Monaco, San Merino, Danzig and Vatican City are a different phenomenon altogether and should not appear. The category may need a definition as a headnote to ensure that only microstates and not small nations appear.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
00:20, 20 April 2009 (UTC)reply
keep both being so very small is certainly a defining characteristic of these countries--possibly their only truly defining characteristic. Categories are to aid in navigation to articles on subjects having a common characteristic and these do so.
Hmains (
talk)
02:39, 22 April 2009 (UTC)reply
By taking a broader view than just looking at two isolated discussions in a spider's-eye view. Ask, which approach is followed more often in similar cases?
Good Ol’factory(talk)11:05, 22 April 2009 (UTC)reply
All lists do a better job and allow navigation. Categories can never list additional details or provide for sorting, etc. That lists can do things a category can't is a design feature, not a reason for deletion. Why does the capability of lists have to do with a reason for deleting this category?
Alansohn (
talk)
22:30, 23 April 2009 (UTC)reply
I didn't say the capability of lists was my reason. These particular lists do a better job than these particular categories. Not all lists are better than categories. --
Kbdank7114:52, 24 April 2009 (UTC)reply
Twist your words? (straight from your edit summary
here). Other than "per Johnbod", who seemed far more conflicted on this issue, your sole reason for deletion was "The lists do a better job and allow navigation" which leargely matches Johnbod's sole reason of "the list at
Microstate has much more detail, and allows navigation" (note: All of these are direct quotes). As
WP:CLN states "Developers of these redundant systems should not compete against each other in a destructive manner, such as by nominating the work of their competitors to be deleted just because they overlap." Categories can never do many of the things that lists can. What is it about the inherent design of the category system in Wikipedia that would justify retention of all other categories that suffer from the same flaw, while deleting this one? I'd love to hear a criteria -- subjective, objective, anything -- that would explain how and when a particular category should be deleted because of the perceived inherent superiority of lists, and let's test that approach on this category here. That way it would look less like a matter of arbitrary personal preference.
Alansohn (
talk)
15:14, 24 April 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:Rugby union Number 8s
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.
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Almost, but not quite, speediable. No other rugby union position category has the position capitalised, and the relevant section heading in
Rugby union positions refers to the "number eight", which is also the usual spelling in the print media (here in New Zealand, at least, though I suspect it's true worldwide).
Grutness...wha?00:22, 17 April 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:Jewish assassins
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.
Israeli. We normally classify people who lived places before they became independent with the independent country, like
Soghomon Tehlirian who was born in the Ottoman Empire (in the area that was part considered "Armenia", although various machinations at the Paris Peace Conference dumped the place into Turkey, did his assassination in German, and died in the USA. Categorized as Armenian.
Leonid Nikolaev was born in the Russian Empire, but did his dirty work for and in the Soviet Union and died there. Categorized as Russian.
Jan Kubiš was born in the Austrian Empire, lived in Czechoslovakia after independence did his deed in the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia, and died there. Classified as Czech (probably should be Czechoslovak, as we have that category as well).
Herschel Grynszpan was born in the German Empire of parents who had come from Poland, after WWI they became Polish citizens, he did his deed in France, and died in a concentration camp - may never have been to Poland. Categorized as Polish.
Eligiusz Niewiadomski born in the Russian Empire (Warsaw), did his deed in independent Poland following WWI. Categorized as Polish. also
Rosli Dhobi, born, assassined, and died in the British Crown Colony of Sarawak, before Malaysia was formed (1963) or even its predecessor Malaya (1948). Categorized as Malaysian.
Carlossuarez46 (
talk)
00:51, 17 April 2009 (UTC)reply
Note: further this practice is used outside of the context of assassins: notable Americans who died before the establishment of the United States (1789) are classified as "Americans",
Hubert Nathaniel Critchlow, the great labor leader in British Guinea (pre-independence) is classified as Guyanese, etc. etc.
Carlossuarez46 (
talk)
00:56, 17 April 2009 (UTC)reply
I could not agree more that this category is every bit as appropriate within the categorization system as the three suggested parents, two of which have been deleted and the third of which is
on its way out.
Otto4711 (
talk)
08:33, 22 April 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.