Category:Creators and founders of sports and sporting institutions
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: The existing category and its subcats are woefully longwinded, redundant ("creators and founders", kind of like "fishermen and fish-catchers"?) and most importantly are mix-and-matching two entirely different topics.
Category:Sports builders just doesn't make any sense in English, implying venue construction or something, and is too vague otherwise, being a catchall for creators/inventors, boosters and promoters, iconic players, you name it. The very small number of entries are easily moved to proper categories (I've already moved one, and
Norman Brookes should go in
Category:Sports officials until such time as there is a
Category:Tennis officials, and
Arden Eddie should be in
Category:Minor league baseball executives, I think. There aren't any others there.
Category:Creators of sports should remain in
Category:Sports inventors and innovators, and contain the
Dwight F. Davis,
James Naismith and
Tom Wills entries.
Category:Founders of sporting institutions should move a step down to
Category:Sports occupations (see minor rename CfR below), and contain the
Fahad Al-Ahmed Al-Jaber Al-Sabah entry. The two subcats can simply be split in half as subcats of the two resulting cats (not creating one if it is not actually needed - e.g. all of the boxing entries are surely destined for
Category:Founders of boxing institutions (or somewhere else more narrow, such as a trainers category or whatever), with no
Category:Creators of boxing likely being appropriate, since boxing goes back to antiquity) and at least in the football (soccer) one, several can be removed from any of these categories, as they are simply founders of clubs/squads/teams (I'm sure every fan thinks of their team as "an institution", but that is not what is meant here); there should already be a managers and/or coaches and/or teamowners category for this, and it can be created if it is missing.
I see merit to certain parts of this nomination, but don't understand why the general category should be split into "creators" and "founders", but the boxing and football subcategories not.
Debresser (
talk)
19:18, 13 December 2009 (UTC)reply
I didn't say subcategories shouldn't be split, generally. In the particular cases appearing here, there's no need yet for some categories, e.g. inventors in the field of boxing (if someone writes an article on whoever invented boxing gloves or boxing bits, or whatever, then such a category will be needed). The cat. for founders of boxing institutions is already needed. — SMcCandlish [
talk] [
cont] ‹(-¿-)›19:18, 15 December 2009 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Sports occupations
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.
At first glance, "occupation" seems reasonable for the items in this category. Can you point out some examples where you think it doesn't work? --
RL0919 (
talk)
00:05, 16 December 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:Εκοpedia template categories
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Delete From the names used on the page it seems that this category should have been added to a different Wiki.
Favonian (
talk)
11:11, 11 December 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 footballers
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.
Comment. If you want all of the subcategories renamed, they will need to be tagged and nominated. You might want to delay doing that until you see if this discussion is closed with a consensus to change.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
09:28, 11 December 2009 (UTC)reply
That's rather self-contradictory. :-) Either they should all be listed now or not. I think that it is perfectly fine to discuss the overall issue and come to consensus on what to do with them all without redundantly listing a bunch of duplicative entries here. A putsch to consolidate a bunch of disparately named categories under one standard naming scheme certainly needs such a list, but a proposal to rename a bunch of already consistent categories really doesn't. — SMcCandlish [
talk] [
cont] ‹(-¿-)›00:21, 12 December 2009 (UTC)reply
Support – I think we are tending to use 'Foo players' rather than 'Fooers' anyway, and I agree that mentions of rugby sometimes add 'league' or 'union' but not 'football' these days. I also support the idea of head category renames being rolled out in a speedy way to subcats (and going to cfd if and only if contested).
Occuli (
talk)
09:36, 11 December 2009 (UTC)reply
Indeed. Demanding hours and hours of redundant listing is simply a means (whether intended or not) of discouraging CfD discussions from ever happening. — SMcCandlish [
talk] [
cont] ‹(-¿-)›00:21, 12 December 2009 (UTC)reply
Rename - The term "footballer" only means something to certain classes of English speakers and looks like informal jargon or slang to everyone else (arguably it is exactly that, and is at least non-encyclopedic in tone). Further, the term will be confusing to some, for whom "footballer" exclusively means "player of association football a.k.a. soccer", and for whom a rugby [league|union] player is a "rugby [league|union] player". And it is unnecessarily long by 4 characters. — SMcCandlish [
talk] [
cont] ‹(-¿-)›00:21, 12 December 2009 (UTC)reply
Strong oppose for now. I have no particular interest in the subject, but while this proposal seems at first glance to be good idea, I want to hear from the rugby buffs before making up my mind. I note that this proposal affects squillions of categories used by
WikiProject Rugby union, but I can find no trace of any attempt to notify the
WP:RU. I have found a recent brief discussion there about
the general principle of using "players" rather than "footballers", but I see no evidence that anyone has ever suggested to the project that this might trigger a mass renaming of categories. It might be that tagging the subcats would alert the project, but it seems to me to be only a matter of basic courtesy to directly notify the project, and unless they have had a chnace to contribute to this discussion, I'll oppose the proposed renaming. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
22:30, 16 December 2009 (UTC)reply
Support rename as players is more common nowadays; footballers has fallen out of general use for rugby union's participants--
Bcp67 (
talk)
14:17, 19 December 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:Albums produced by Marinelli
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:List of beauty queens from Scandinavia
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:Gohar Shahi
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.
Why don't we make a speedy criterion, that matching an article's name is a speedy, if that name has been in unchallenged use for over three months.
Debresser (
talk)
19:07, 13 December 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:H. P. Blavatsky
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.
I agree that
Madame Blavatsky would be by far the superior name for the article. Apparently it used to be there and some editors agreed to move it because they thought it violated a rule about honorifics in an article name. I'll keep an eye on it and if it moves renominate it.
Good Ol’factory(talk)09:08, 12 December 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:Packets
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:Lists of ambiguous hospital names
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:Lists of political parties by generic name
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.
Reply: Questionably relevant. It is basically a DAB page, since in many if not most cases there is no connection but name between the entries in the list. Someone with too much time on their hands simply listified it and then violated
WP:MOSICONS again and again and again to make it look cute and graphicky. It cites no sources, and has no non-entry content other than a brief intro that smacks of original research/personal opinion (unless the writer of it has investigated every single "Liberal Party" listed to see why they are called that). — SMcCandlish [
talk] [
cont] ‹(-¿-)›00:30, 12 December 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:Creators and founders of sports and sporting institutions
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: The existing category and its subcats are woefully longwinded, redundant ("creators and founders", kind of like "fishermen and fish-catchers"?) and most importantly are mix-and-matching two entirely different topics.
Category:Sports builders just doesn't make any sense in English, implying venue construction or something, and is too vague otherwise, being a catchall for creators/inventors, boosters and promoters, iconic players, you name it. The very small number of entries are easily moved to proper categories (I've already moved one, and
Norman Brookes should go in
Category:Sports officials until such time as there is a
Category:Tennis officials, and
Arden Eddie should be in
Category:Minor league baseball executives, I think. There aren't any others there.
Category:Creators of sports should remain in
Category:Sports inventors and innovators, and contain the
Dwight F. Davis,
James Naismith and
Tom Wills entries.
Category:Founders of sporting institutions should move a step down to
Category:Sports occupations (see minor rename CfR below), and contain the
Fahad Al-Ahmed Al-Jaber Al-Sabah entry. The two subcats can simply be split in half as subcats of the two resulting cats (not creating one if it is not actually needed - e.g. all of the boxing entries are surely destined for
Category:Founders of boxing institutions (or somewhere else more narrow, such as a trainers category or whatever), with no
Category:Creators of boxing likely being appropriate, since boxing goes back to antiquity) and at least in the football (soccer) one, several can be removed from any of these categories, as they are simply founders of clubs/squads/teams (I'm sure every fan thinks of their team as "an institution", but that is not what is meant here); there should already be a managers and/or coaches and/or teamowners category for this, and it can be created if it is missing.
I see merit to certain parts of this nomination, but don't understand why the general category should be split into "creators" and "founders", but the boxing and football subcategories not.
Debresser (
talk)
19:18, 13 December 2009 (UTC)reply
I didn't say subcategories shouldn't be split, generally. In the particular cases appearing here, there's no need yet for some categories, e.g. inventors in the field of boxing (if someone writes an article on whoever invented boxing gloves or boxing bits, or whatever, then such a category will be needed). The cat. for founders of boxing institutions is already needed. — SMcCandlish [
talk] [
cont] ‹(-¿-)›19:18, 15 December 2009 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Sports occupations
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.
At first glance, "occupation" seems reasonable for the items in this category. Can you point out some examples where you think it doesn't work? --
RL0919 (
talk)
00:05, 16 December 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:Εκοpedia template categories
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Delete From the names used on the page it seems that this category should have been added to a different Wiki.
Favonian (
talk)
11:11, 11 December 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 footballers
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.
Comment. If you want all of the subcategories renamed, they will need to be tagged and nominated. You might want to delay doing that until you see if this discussion is closed with a consensus to change.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
09:28, 11 December 2009 (UTC)reply
That's rather self-contradictory. :-) Either they should all be listed now or not. I think that it is perfectly fine to discuss the overall issue and come to consensus on what to do with them all without redundantly listing a bunch of duplicative entries here. A putsch to consolidate a bunch of disparately named categories under one standard naming scheme certainly needs such a list, but a proposal to rename a bunch of already consistent categories really doesn't. — SMcCandlish [
talk] [
cont] ‹(-¿-)›00:21, 12 December 2009 (UTC)reply
Support – I think we are tending to use 'Foo players' rather than 'Fooers' anyway, and I agree that mentions of rugby sometimes add 'league' or 'union' but not 'football' these days. I also support the idea of head category renames being rolled out in a speedy way to subcats (and going to cfd if and only if contested).
Occuli (
talk)
09:36, 11 December 2009 (UTC)reply
Indeed. Demanding hours and hours of redundant listing is simply a means (whether intended or not) of discouraging CfD discussions from ever happening. — SMcCandlish [
talk] [
cont] ‹(-¿-)›00:21, 12 December 2009 (UTC)reply
Rename - The term "footballer" only means something to certain classes of English speakers and looks like informal jargon or slang to everyone else (arguably it is exactly that, and is at least non-encyclopedic in tone). Further, the term will be confusing to some, for whom "footballer" exclusively means "player of association football a.k.a. soccer", and for whom a rugby [league|union] player is a "rugby [league|union] player". And it is unnecessarily long by 4 characters. — SMcCandlish [
talk] [
cont] ‹(-¿-)›00:21, 12 December 2009 (UTC)reply
Strong oppose for now. I have no particular interest in the subject, but while this proposal seems at first glance to be good idea, I want to hear from the rugby buffs before making up my mind. I note that this proposal affects squillions of categories used by
WikiProject Rugby union, but I can find no trace of any attempt to notify the
WP:RU. I have found a recent brief discussion there about
the general principle of using "players" rather than "footballers", but I see no evidence that anyone has ever suggested to the project that this might trigger a mass renaming of categories. It might be that tagging the subcats would alert the project, but it seems to me to be only a matter of basic courtesy to directly notify the project, and unless they have had a chnace to contribute to this discussion, I'll oppose the proposed renaming. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
22:30, 16 December 2009 (UTC)reply
Support rename as players is more common nowadays; footballers has fallen out of general use for rugby union's participants--
Bcp67 (
talk)
14:17, 19 December 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:Albums produced by Marinelli
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:List of beauty queens from Scandinavia
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:Gohar Shahi
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.
Why don't we make a speedy criterion, that matching an article's name is a speedy, if that name has been in unchallenged use for over three months.
Debresser (
talk)
19:07, 13 December 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:H. P. Blavatsky
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.
I agree that
Madame Blavatsky would be by far the superior name for the article. Apparently it used to be there and some editors agreed to move it because they thought it violated a rule about honorifics in an article name. I'll keep an eye on it and if it moves renominate it.
Good Ol’factory(talk)09:08, 12 December 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:Packets
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:Lists of ambiguous hospital names
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:Lists of political parties by generic name
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.
Reply: Questionably relevant. It is basically a DAB page, since in many if not most cases there is no connection but name between the entries in the list. Someone with too much time on their hands simply listified it and then violated
WP:MOSICONS again and again and again to make it look cute and graphicky. It cites no sources, and has no non-entry content other than a brief intro that smacks of original research/personal opinion (unless the writer of it has investigated every single "Liberal Party" listed to see why they are called that). — SMcCandlish [
talk] [
cont] ‹(-¿-)›00:30, 12 December 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.