The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:rename.
Kbdank71 14:31, 4 February 2009 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Languages of Bougainville Province
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:rename.
Kbdank71 14:31, 4 February 2009 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Moldovan linguistic and ethnic controversy
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:keep.
Kbdank71 14:38, 4 February 2009 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Rename. A more neutral and broad title. For example, "
Moldovan Cyrillic alphabet", included into the category, is about identity, rather than about controversy. - 7-bubёn
>t 21:11, 29 January 2009 (UTC)reply
Keep current title. There are 6 articles in the category:
Moldovan Cyrillic alphabet,
Controversy over linguistic and ethnic identity in Moldova,
Moldovan language,
Moldovan-Romanian dictionary,
Moldovans,
Moldovenism. All except Moldovans are political. Moldovan language is the politically correct name for
Romanian language used in certain political contexts (not always, and BTW it is NEVER used in
education, when the term "Romanian" is ALWAYS used). Moldovan Cyrillic alphabet was a politically motivated artificial creation during and at the orders of
Stalin. The context and the current projection of these are the Controversy and Moldovenism. Moldovan-Romanian dictionary is a farse, a dictionary of synonims, written by the very person that was the stick of the
Soviet propaganda in the domain. These 5 articles do not define Moldovan identity at all.
This category is created solely for the purpose of isolating the controversy, so that controversy does not mix with culture and society - because in reality it never does - it only mixes with politics. We need many categories such as
Category:Moldovan society,
Category:Moldovan culture,
Category:Moldovan people,
Category:History of Moldova, and more to define Moldovan identity. It simply can not be defined in a single small category. In fact, one would need no less than
Category:Moldova to define it.
I agree that the article
Moldovans is not fitting here on equal par with the other 5, but it is by far not the primary category of this article.
Dc76\talk 23:06, 29 January 2009 (UTC)reply
Keep current title, given that there exists an unresolved
controversy as to whether a "Moldovan ethnic identity" exists, the new name may be seen as slightly more POV by implying that it does exist.
Martintg (
talk) 05:50, 30 January 2009 (UTC)reply
Oppose renaming. I understand that on the background of modern politics littered with literally thousands of
artificial controversies, it might make many aware people wary to see Yet Another Controversy Article. However, in this case, there's more to the controversy than
teach the controversy, and putting "Moldovan identity" into the title would amount to taking a side in the controversy -- a violation of the
WP:NPOV policy. Therefore, I must oppose.
ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 10:15, 30 January 2009 (UTC)reply
I would still prefer the current title (can argue in more detail), but if something like
Category:Moldovan linguistic and ethnicity issues would form a compromise, I would opt for the compromise, even if the title would be not the best.
Dc76\talk 13:34, 2 February 2009 (UTC)reply
Oppose rename - as others have amply stated, there remains plenty of controversy over whether "Moldovan" is in fact an "identity", so to rename would be to endorse one POV over the other, when both have roughly equal validity. -
BiruitorulTalk 01:07, 1 February 2009 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Tatra vehicles
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:keep.
Kbdank71 14:42, 4 February 2009 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Gives a broader catchment for articles. --
Alan Liefting (
talk) - 21:09, 29 January 2009 (UTC)reply
Rename to
Category:Tatra (company) per the main article, not to
Category:Tatra which is a dab page and the primary usage is probably the mountains after which the car company was named, not vice versa.
Carlossuarez46 (
talk) 00:41, 30 January 2009 (UTC)reply
Vegas has now set this up as the parent, which is the right way to do it.
Johnbod (
talk) 14:19, 31 January 2009 (UTC)reply
Oppose just create a category for the company as a parent cat instead.
76.66.196.229 (
talk) 05:20, 30 January 2009 (UTC)reply
Did you notice that this already exists?
Vegaswikian (
talk) 06:14, 30 January 2009 (UTC)reply
Keep Nom says: "Gives a broader catchment for articles" - well we already have a category for that, and this will mess up the other parent
Category:Vehicles by brandJohnbod (
talk) 14:17, 31 January 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.
Ice hockey players by descent
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 Non-defining and a form of overcategorization. We have a category tree for players by nationality (i.e.:
Category:Ukrainian ice hockey players, but categorizing players by their ancestors nationalities is stretching things a bit far. At
WP:HOCKEY, we also have questions of reliability, as it seems that many entries have been made based on guesswork of what nationality a player's last name sounds like.
Nominating the main category, and the two subcats in it's tree:
Delete as proposed. I think it goes beyond encyclopedic to an issue of privacy.
Alaney2k (
talk) 18:30, 29 January 2009 (UTC)reply
Keep It's not entirely "guesswork", many are cited. The Ukrainian one I'm still working on and doing research, the Macedonian one is backed up. It's a topic that can be expanded and interests many. --
Lvivske (
talk) 18:57, 29 January 2009 (UTC)reply
Comment. Descent is not very meaningful/useful for categorization when applied to hockey players. Hockey players are generally from countries where there is snow and ice. It doesn't mean anything that someone from their parents or grand-parents or great-grand-parents generation was of X descent. If there is biographical information about a player's descent, that may be meaningful and belong in an article but it does not lead to meaningful categorization.
Alaney2k (
talk) 20:01, 29 January 2009 (UTC)reply
Delete: Per nom. Often a non-accurate category, difficult to provide factual back-up. –
Nurmsook!talk... 19:01, 29 January 2009 (UTC)reply
What if I delete everything that doesn't have cited proof and just re-expand from there? --
Lvivske (
talk) 19:07, 29 January 2009 (UTC)reply
Delete A persons nationality might be defining but I don't think their ancestors nationality is defining enough for categories. You just have to look at the average North American to see how nuts this can get. Guy has 4 grandparents all with a different nationality and marries Girl with 4 different nationalities and suddenly the topic of the article has categories for 8 different nationalities. Yes eight might be an exagerating it but the point is still there I myself have 3 different ones and it wouldn't be uncommon to marry someone here that has 3 others. -
Djsasso (
talk) 19:16, 29 January 2009 (UTC)reply
Delete, this is trivia. The players are already categorized by nationality/occupation. There is no substantive reason to intersect this occupation with the ethnicity of some (or only one?) of their ancestors.
Postdlf (
talk) 19:22, 29 January 2009 (UTC)reply
Delete Overcategorization. Using a player's specific nationality is sufficient, don't need to categorize by their ancestors also. —
Andrwsc (
talk·contribs) 19:38, 29 January 2009 (UTC)reply
Delete Overcategorization. Eg
Bill Barilko should be in 'Canadians of Ukrainian descent' (as he is) but there is no need to subcat ice hockey players by descent. (
Macedonia is a redirect.)
Occuli (
talk) 22:32, 29 January 2009 (UTC)reply
Delete OCAT by occupation & race/ethnicity.
Carlossuarez46 (
talk) 00:42, 30 January 2009 (UTC)reply
Delete if cited it can easily be worked in to the prose, but as a category no thanks. —
Krm500(
Communicate!) 05:01, 30 January 2009 (UTC)reply
Delete Categorization by ancestors' nationality is overcategorization.
Flibirigit (
talk) 20:40, 3 February 2009 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:St. Louis Restaurants
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:rename.
Kbdank71 14:30, 4 February 2009 (UTC)reply
rename per nom Facts are as stated by the nom. No apparent reason for this cat to not match is sister/brother cats
Hmains (
talk) 19:42, 31 January 2009 (UTC)reply
I'd say it is borderline for a Canada category right now. If you created it, I suspect that no one would object and it would hide the ambiguous Vancouver one.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 23:05, 3 February 2009 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Mythology of the creation and death
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:Merge, strange and unnecessary grouping. The purported article describing this category has just been a redlink since the category was created about two years ago. The relevant Wikiproject
has been notified.
Postdlf (
talk) 16:02, 29 January 2009 (UTC)reply
Support upmerge - This grouping makes no sense.
AletaSing 20:07, 29 January 2009 (UTC)reply
Comment - It IS a somewhat odd agglomeration of stuff -- not all of which really belongs in a category about mythology. So any upmerge should be done on a case-by-case basis to the appropriate parent categories.
Cgingold (
talk) 21:48, 29 January 2009 (UTC)reply
I suggested
Category:Mythology as a merge target as that's the only parent of this category; I really have no opinion as to whether the contents all go there or elsewhere.
Postdlf (
talk) 23:01, 29 January 2009 (UTC)reply
Sorry for the confusion -- I had been looking at the parents of each of the sub-categories. The basic concern is valid, though: not all of the sub-cats should be moved into
Category:Mythology -- they need to be considered individually.
Cgingold (
talk) 03:47, 30 January 2009 (UTC)reply
Support upmerge my guess (speculation) is that this is supposed to be a
Category:Cosmology mythology by another name as both creation and eschatology seem to be part of the ambit; but upmerge is best...
Carlossuarez46 (
talk) 00:53, 30 January 2009 (UTC)reply
Split. The conglomeration appears to have started as somebody's culturally narrow view on modulary of mythologies; outside that narrow POV it doesn't make much sense to keep
Category:Creation mythology and
Category:Death mythology together.
ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 10:27, 30 January 2009 (UTC)reply
Two of the entries of this category are
Category:Mythological cosmologies and
Category:Creation myths, so those subtopics are already grouped. Even with those, and including both articles and subcategories, this category only has six entries at present.
Postdlf (
talk) 14:56, 1 February 2009 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:History of Romania (1940-1945)
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:merge.
Kbdank71 14:25, 4 February 2009 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: There's no point in having two categories about the same topic and I think the "during World War II" is a better description than "1940-1945".
bogdan (
talk) 15:29, 29 January 2009 (UTC)reply
Definitevely (and obviously) agree merging, but the other way around, that is
Category:Romania during World War II into
Category:History of Romania (1940-1945), and erase the former, not the latter. Not all events that happened in that period were related to the war. In short, there are 2 types of articles now in RdWWII: 1) those that have to be moved to
Category:Military history of Romania during World War II, e.g. military opperations, 2) those that refer to politics of Romania during that period, but not related to military, such as Legionaries' rebelion, Iasi pogrom, etc. I was actually in the process of doing that. But it's slow, because I took things article by article, and in some cases I would need to add other cats as well, for example for people.
Dc76\talk 16:30, 29 January 2009 (UTC)reply
Ok, I just did those moves that had "Category:Military histiry of" as a target. All it remains to do is to merge these two categories. One of them has 3 subcats and 6 articles, not including those of subcats, the other has 1 and 25. There are no repetitions, so the end result will be 4 subcats and 31 proper articles. It remains only to choose which title is better and to give the task to a bot. BTW, can we give the task to a bot? I can, of course, do all the moves manually, but it is very tedious, you know.
P.S. As for placing articles also in people, treaties, ships, massacres, etc cats, I will check again later in a more systematic way. Don't worry about this now (unless of course you like, in which case you are wholeheartedly invited).
Dc76\talk 18:26, 29 January 2009 (UTC)reply
Support what defines the period in question is WW2.
Carlossuarez46 (
talk) 00:43, 30 January 2009 (UTC)reply
Support. The titles are obviously just different ways to refer to the same topic, there's no point in keeping these categories apart.
ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 10:17, 30 January 2009 (UTC)reply
Support merge for preference, but reverse merge is also an option.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 16:42, 31 January 2009 (UTC)reply
Support Not only is it already designed around the war, but I think it is a bad idea to create categories distinguished by a succession of years contained within brackets: the categories will look too much like each other and the distinguishing criterion would be obscured.
Dahn (
talk) 00:03, 1 February 2009 (UTC)reply
I want to simply give the reason I had in mind when I created the category with years: I looked at how this is done for other countries. Mainly I looked at USA and at Poland, plus at a couple others. The reason in this particular instance is that there are many 1940-41 events/people/etc and also a number of 1941-45 ones not directly connected to the war. So, I thought a title with years would be better. However, I was definitively wrong in creating a new cat, rather then proposing renaming the old one. (Even with the "military" subcat issue, this was possible to be done, I should have thought more thoroughly that some people might not like a title with years. Sorry, I apologize to those people if by introducing years I stepped on their tastes. It certainly wasn't my intention to offend.) And, if I subcategorized too much, once I am finished, it should be strightforward to merge a couple cats if that's better. My main worry was to link well with categories "X by country" and with categories for different countries (i.e. issues that refer to 2 or more countries).
Dc76\talk 13:48, 2 February 2009 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Disamb-Class U.S. Congress articles
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:rename.
Kbdank71 14:23, 4 February 2009 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Rename. This is an assessment category for {{Project Congress}}. Just to make it a little clearer as to what it means. —
Markles 14:24, 29 January 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:New Zealand Independant crown entities
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 (empty).
Good Ol’factory(talk) 08:54, 3 February 2009 (UTC)reply
Speedy delete. Obvious mistake, and the category is empty.
ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 10:19, 30 January 2009 (UTC)reply
Speedy merge then delete -- obvious spelling error
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 neo-Nazis
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 One article, little growth potential.
72.95.242.209 (
talk) 06:40, 29 January 2009 (UTC)reply
Delete ocat by race/ethnicity + political viewpoint.
Carlossuarez46 (
talk) 00:44, 30 January 2009 (UTC)reply
Delete. Very problematic category of the kind that Wikipedia's community handles in the absolutely worst manner; a scandal waiting to happen. Better not keep that can of worms next to the can opener.
ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 10:23, 30 January 2009 (UTC)reply
Delete - One article. Obviously a useless category. --
Steven J. Anderson (
talk) 14:23, 30 January 2009 (UTC)reply
Delete. Seems like there's no hope for expansion.
DiverseMentality 00:18, 1 February 2009 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Professional sports leagues
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:keep.
Kbdank71 14:42, 4 February 2009 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: I m under the impression that this division is not (attempted to be) maintained on wikip.
Mayumashu (
talk) 05:01, 29 January 2009 (UTC)reply
Oppose Being professional or being amateur is highly defining of a sports league. In fact I would say its perhaps the most defining aspect of a sports league other than the sport it plays. -
Djsasso (
talk) 19:25, 29 January 2009 (UTC)reply
Oppose per Djsasso, although in some areas there will be gray zones.
Carlossuarez46 (
talk) 00:52, 30 January 2009 (UTC)reply
Oppose -- the converse is "amateur leagues". There is a marginal category where there are semi-professional clubs, but that is a problem for those categorising them to sort out.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 16:47, 31 January 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:Indoor soccer players
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:keep.
Kbdank71 14:44, 4 February 2009 (UTC)reply
?? It s part of a whole set of cat pages for a number of established
indoor soccer leagues. and this page does not list players by the surface they play on or if they played in a domed stadium or not -
indoor soccer is no less a sport than
futsal,
real tennis,
beach volleyball, etc. - should players by these sports be deleted too?
Mayumashu (
talk) 04:00, 30 January 2009 (UTC)reply
Keep Indoor soccer is a completely different sport than Outdoor soccer. As far as the rename goes I have no opinion one way or the other. Just like
ice hockey and
field hockey are two different sports. -
Djsasso (
talk) 04:30, 30 January 2009 (UTC)reply
Keep Just as
air hockey,
field hockey, and
ice hockey are significantly different sports with certain thematic similarities,
indoor soccer is a unique sport with its own rules and professional leagues. Are there places where the indoor game is referred to as "indoor football"? In the US, where the indoor game was invented, it's never called that so as not to be confused with
arena football. -
Dravecky (
talk) 17:05, 30 January 2009 (UTC)reply
Keep – if it is indeed a US-only game then perhaps it should be just 'Indoor soccer' throughout (per
Indoor soccer, which says it is called
futsal outside N America).
Occuli (
talk) 17:45, 30 January 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:French philosophers of the 20th century
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:rename.
Kbdank71 14:21, 4 February 2009 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Rename. To match common form, for people by century categories.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 00:49, 29 January 2009 (UTC)reply
Misspelt. At the very least, don't put a hyphen between "20th" and "century".
ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 10:25, 30 January 2009 (UTC)reply
Sorry but based on multiple discussions the hyphen is grammatically correct and all of the other philosopher categories are now of that form. Is the hyphen what you are calling the spelling error?
Vegaswikian (
talk) 02:51, 31 January 2009 (UTC)reply
Support If we rename to this format, the propsoed spelling is pedantically correct.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 16:48, 31 January 2009 (UTC)reply
Rename. All categories are being renamed to reflect correct hyphenation of adjectival phrases. Every time this comes up at CfD, someone complains of pedantry. At least they're not complaining about pederasty.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 08:51, 3 February 2009 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Southern Conference Hall of Fame inductees
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:delete.
Kbdank71 14:20, 4 February 2009 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Minor U.S. college sports award category; non-defining for inductees. All 8 persons in the category are currently in the list at
Southern Conference Hall of Fame.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 00:11, 29 January 2009 (UTC)reply
*KeepDelete: I'd hardly call the fourth oldest athletic conference (1921) in the United States minor. Former teams in the conference have gone on to form the
Southeastern Conference and the
Atlantic Coast Conference. Considering the number of teams and players that have participated in the SoCon, election to the Hall of Fame is certainly notable, and the category will expand as more members are inducted. --
Geologik (
talk) 02:05, 29 January 2009 (UTC)reply
I didn't say the athletic conference was minor; I said it was a minor award. We can quibble about how minor it is, but it's certainly not a defining award for the likes of
Jerry West and
Arnold Palmer. A list does the job nicely.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 09:12, 29 January 2009 (UTC)reply
I'm not so sure. Just today I've read a quote by
Frank Selvy who said it was a "huge honor and thrill" to be inducted. That sounds defining to me. Keep in mind this is a guy who is the only Division I player to score 100 points in a basketball game. He played with Jerry West on the Lakers. --
Geologik (
talk) 03:56, 30 January 2009 (UTC)reply
If I feel "honored and thrilled" to have been fortunate enough to have had enough money to go to Disney World, does that make it defining for me? If not, personal reaction to an event probably is not a great standard to try to use.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 04:48, 30 January 2009 (UTC)reply
I won't bother dignifying such a ridiculous correlation. Certainly the millions who visit Disney World yearly are comparable to to the few athletes inducted into a hall of fame. I've removed the category from all the offending articles. Congratulations. --
Geologik (
talk) 05:29, 30 January 2009 (UTC)reply
My whole point was to use an absurd example, because to use personal feelings about an event to determine how important it is ignores the real issue—what is the actual event in question? To use personal feelings about the event is pointless, since the event might be completely common, like going to D.W.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 08:57, 30 January 2009 (UTC)reply
Delete not defining and there are likely dozens if not hundreds of these awards and halls of fame - more cat clutter on bios with no enhanced searchability.
Carlossuarez46 (
talk) 00:51, 30 January 2009 (UTC)reply
Can you show me the other dozens if not hundres of awards and halls of fame? The argument of category clutter, which I don't agree with, appears more like
WP:IDL than anything. --
Geologik (
talk) 03:56, 30 January 2009 (UTC)reply
Ah, from the few I've looked at, you're either the nominator or usually the sole delete vote. If that's all it takes to get a category deleted that you don't care for then carry on. Please go ahead and delete this category as well. I give up. :) --
Geologik (
talk) 05:12, 30 January 2009 (UTC)reply
It would be nice if you could pin full credit on me, but there is a WP guideline about this, and the precedents linked to above go back long before I even began editing in WP. I wasn't even a WP member for the earliest examples of the 12 month period that I sampled, let alone when the guideline was set down.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 05:19, 30 January 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.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:rename.
Kbdank71 14:31, 4 February 2009 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Languages of Bougainville Province
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:rename.
Kbdank71 14:31, 4 February 2009 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Moldovan linguistic and ethnic controversy
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:keep.
Kbdank71 14:38, 4 February 2009 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Rename. A more neutral and broad title. For example, "
Moldovan Cyrillic alphabet", included into the category, is about identity, rather than about controversy. - 7-bubёn
>t 21:11, 29 January 2009 (UTC)reply
Keep current title. There are 6 articles in the category:
Moldovan Cyrillic alphabet,
Controversy over linguistic and ethnic identity in Moldova,
Moldovan language,
Moldovan-Romanian dictionary,
Moldovans,
Moldovenism. All except Moldovans are political. Moldovan language is the politically correct name for
Romanian language used in certain political contexts (not always, and BTW it is NEVER used in
education, when the term "Romanian" is ALWAYS used). Moldovan Cyrillic alphabet was a politically motivated artificial creation during and at the orders of
Stalin. The context and the current projection of these are the Controversy and Moldovenism. Moldovan-Romanian dictionary is a farse, a dictionary of synonims, written by the very person that was the stick of the
Soviet propaganda in the domain. These 5 articles do not define Moldovan identity at all.
This category is created solely for the purpose of isolating the controversy, so that controversy does not mix with culture and society - because in reality it never does - it only mixes with politics. We need many categories such as
Category:Moldovan society,
Category:Moldovan culture,
Category:Moldovan people,
Category:History of Moldova, and more to define Moldovan identity. It simply can not be defined in a single small category. In fact, one would need no less than
Category:Moldova to define it.
I agree that the article
Moldovans is not fitting here on equal par with the other 5, but it is by far not the primary category of this article.
Dc76\talk 23:06, 29 January 2009 (UTC)reply
Keep current title, given that there exists an unresolved
controversy as to whether a "Moldovan ethnic identity" exists, the new name may be seen as slightly more POV by implying that it does exist.
Martintg (
talk) 05:50, 30 January 2009 (UTC)reply
Oppose renaming. I understand that on the background of modern politics littered with literally thousands of
artificial controversies, it might make many aware people wary to see Yet Another Controversy Article. However, in this case, there's more to the controversy than
teach the controversy, and putting "Moldovan identity" into the title would amount to taking a side in the controversy -- a violation of the
WP:NPOV policy. Therefore, I must oppose.
ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 10:15, 30 January 2009 (UTC)reply
I would still prefer the current title (can argue in more detail), but if something like
Category:Moldovan linguistic and ethnicity issues would form a compromise, I would opt for the compromise, even if the title would be not the best.
Dc76\talk 13:34, 2 February 2009 (UTC)reply
Oppose rename - as others have amply stated, there remains plenty of controversy over whether "Moldovan" is in fact an "identity", so to rename would be to endorse one POV over the other, when both have roughly equal validity. -
BiruitorulTalk 01:07, 1 February 2009 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Tatra vehicles
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:keep.
Kbdank71 14:42, 4 February 2009 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Gives a broader catchment for articles. --
Alan Liefting (
talk) - 21:09, 29 January 2009 (UTC)reply
Rename to
Category:Tatra (company) per the main article, not to
Category:Tatra which is a dab page and the primary usage is probably the mountains after which the car company was named, not vice versa.
Carlossuarez46 (
talk) 00:41, 30 January 2009 (UTC)reply
Vegas has now set this up as the parent, which is the right way to do it.
Johnbod (
talk) 14:19, 31 January 2009 (UTC)reply
Oppose just create a category for the company as a parent cat instead.
76.66.196.229 (
talk) 05:20, 30 January 2009 (UTC)reply
Did you notice that this already exists?
Vegaswikian (
talk) 06:14, 30 January 2009 (UTC)reply
Keep Nom says: "Gives a broader catchment for articles" - well we already have a category for that, and this will mess up the other parent
Category:Vehicles by brandJohnbod (
talk) 14:17, 31 January 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.
Ice hockey players by descent
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 Non-defining and a form of overcategorization. We have a category tree for players by nationality (i.e.:
Category:Ukrainian ice hockey players, but categorizing players by their ancestors nationalities is stretching things a bit far. At
WP:HOCKEY, we also have questions of reliability, as it seems that many entries have been made based on guesswork of what nationality a player's last name sounds like.
Nominating the main category, and the two subcats in it's tree:
Delete as proposed. I think it goes beyond encyclopedic to an issue of privacy.
Alaney2k (
talk) 18:30, 29 January 2009 (UTC)reply
Keep It's not entirely "guesswork", many are cited. The Ukrainian one I'm still working on and doing research, the Macedonian one is backed up. It's a topic that can be expanded and interests many. --
Lvivske (
talk) 18:57, 29 January 2009 (UTC)reply
Comment. Descent is not very meaningful/useful for categorization when applied to hockey players. Hockey players are generally from countries where there is snow and ice. It doesn't mean anything that someone from their parents or grand-parents or great-grand-parents generation was of X descent. If there is biographical information about a player's descent, that may be meaningful and belong in an article but it does not lead to meaningful categorization.
Alaney2k (
talk) 20:01, 29 January 2009 (UTC)reply
Delete: Per nom. Often a non-accurate category, difficult to provide factual back-up. –
Nurmsook!talk... 19:01, 29 January 2009 (UTC)reply
What if I delete everything that doesn't have cited proof and just re-expand from there? --
Lvivske (
talk) 19:07, 29 January 2009 (UTC)reply
Delete A persons nationality might be defining but I don't think their ancestors nationality is defining enough for categories. You just have to look at the average North American to see how nuts this can get. Guy has 4 grandparents all with a different nationality and marries Girl with 4 different nationalities and suddenly the topic of the article has categories for 8 different nationalities. Yes eight might be an exagerating it but the point is still there I myself have 3 different ones and it wouldn't be uncommon to marry someone here that has 3 others. -
Djsasso (
talk) 19:16, 29 January 2009 (UTC)reply
Delete, this is trivia. The players are already categorized by nationality/occupation. There is no substantive reason to intersect this occupation with the ethnicity of some (or only one?) of their ancestors.
Postdlf (
talk) 19:22, 29 January 2009 (UTC)reply
Delete Overcategorization. Using a player's specific nationality is sufficient, don't need to categorize by their ancestors also. —
Andrwsc (
talk·contribs) 19:38, 29 January 2009 (UTC)reply
Delete Overcategorization. Eg
Bill Barilko should be in 'Canadians of Ukrainian descent' (as he is) but there is no need to subcat ice hockey players by descent. (
Macedonia is a redirect.)
Occuli (
talk) 22:32, 29 January 2009 (UTC)reply
Delete OCAT by occupation & race/ethnicity.
Carlossuarez46 (
talk) 00:42, 30 January 2009 (UTC)reply
Delete if cited it can easily be worked in to the prose, but as a category no thanks. —
Krm500(
Communicate!) 05:01, 30 January 2009 (UTC)reply
Delete Categorization by ancestors' nationality is overcategorization.
Flibirigit (
talk) 20:40, 3 February 2009 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:St. Louis Restaurants
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:rename.
Kbdank71 14:30, 4 February 2009 (UTC)reply
rename per nom Facts are as stated by the nom. No apparent reason for this cat to not match is sister/brother cats
Hmains (
talk) 19:42, 31 January 2009 (UTC)reply
I'd say it is borderline for a Canada category right now. If you created it, I suspect that no one would object and it would hide the ambiguous Vancouver one.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 23:05, 3 February 2009 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Mythology of the creation and death
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:Merge, strange and unnecessary grouping. The purported article describing this category has just been a redlink since the category was created about two years ago. The relevant Wikiproject
has been notified.
Postdlf (
talk) 16:02, 29 January 2009 (UTC)reply
Support upmerge - This grouping makes no sense.
AletaSing 20:07, 29 January 2009 (UTC)reply
Comment - It IS a somewhat odd agglomeration of stuff -- not all of which really belongs in a category about mythology. So any upmerge should be done on a case-by-case basis to the appropriate parent categories.
Cgingold (
talk) 21:48, 29 January 2009 (UTC)reply
I suggested
Category:Mythology as a merge target as that's the only parent of this category; I really have no opinion as to whether the contents all go there or elsewhere.
Postdlf (
talk) 23:01, 29 January 2009 (UTC)reply
Sorry for the confusion -- I had been looking at the parents of each of the sub-categories. The basic concern is valid, though: not all of the sub-cats should be moved into
Category:Mythology -- they need to be considered individually.
Cgingold (
talk) 03:47, 30 January 2009 (UTC)reply
Support upmerge my guess (speculation) is that this is supposed to be a
Category:Cosmology mythology by another name as both creation and eschatology seem to be part of the ambit; but upmerge is best...
Carlossuarez46 (
talk) 00:53, 30 January 2009 (UTC)reply
Split. The conglomeration appears to have started as somebody's culturally narrow view on modulary of mythologies; outside that narrow POV it doesn't make much sense to keep
Category:Creation mythology and
Category:Death mythology together.
ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 10:27, 30 January 2009 (UTC)reply
Two of the entries of this category are
Category:Mythological cosmologies and
Category:Creation myths, so those subtopics are already grouped. Even with those, and including both articles and subcategories, this category only has six entries at present.
Postdlf (
talk) 14:56, 1 February 2009 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:History of Romania (1940-1945)
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:merge.
Kbdank71 14:25, 4 February 2009 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: There's no point in having two categories about the same topic and I think the "during World War II" is a better description than "1940-1945".
bogdan (
talk) 15:29, 29 January 2009 (UTC)reply
Definitevely (and obviously) agree merging, but the other way around, that is
Category:Romania during World War II into
Category:History of Romania (1940-1945), and erase the former, not the latter. Not all events that happened in that period were related to the war. In short, there are 2 types of articles now in RdWWII: 1) those that have to be moved to
Category:Military history of Romania during World War II, e.g. military opperations, 2) those that refer to politics of Romania during that period, but not related to military, such as Legionaries' rebelion, Iasi pogrom, etc. I was actually in the process of doing that. But it's slow, because I took things article by article, and in some cases I would need to add other cats as well, for example for people.
Dc76\talk 16:30, 29 January 2009 (UTC)reply
Ok, I just did those moves that had "Category:Military histiry of" as a target. All it remains to do is to merge these two categories. One of them has 3 subcats and 6 articles, not including those of subcats, the other has 1 and 25. There are no repetitions, so the end result will be 4 subcats and 31 proper articles. It remains only to choose which title is better and to give the task to a bot. BTW, can we give the task to a bot? I can, of course, do all the moves manually, but it is very tedious, you know.
P.S. As for placing articles also in people, treaties, ships, massacres, etc cats, I will check again later in a more systematic way. Don't worry about this now (unless of course you like, in which case you are wholeheartedly invited).
Dc76\talk 18:26, 29 January 2009 (UTC)reply
Support what defines the period in question is WW2.
Carlossuarez46 (
talk) 00:43, 30 January 2009 (UTC)reply
Support. The titles are obviously just different ways to refer to the same topic, there's no point in keeping these categories apart.
ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 10:17, 30 January 2009 (UTC)reply
Support merge for preference, but reverse merge is also an option.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 16:42, 31 January 2009 (UTC)reply
Support Not only is it already designed around the war, but I think it is a bad idea to create categories distinguished by a succession of years contained within brackets: the categories will look too much like each other and the distinguishing criterion would be obscured.
Dahn (
talk) 00:03, 1 February 2009 (UTC)reply
I want to simply give the reason I had in mind when I created the category with years: I looked at how this is done for other countries. Mainly I looked at USA and at Poland, plus at a couple others. The reason in this particular instance is that there are many 1940-41 events/people/etc and also a number of 1941-45 ones not directly connected to the war. So, I thought a title with years would be better. However, I was definitively wrong in creating a new cat, rather then proposing renaming the old one. (Even with the "military" subcat issue, this was possible to be done, I should have thought more thoroughly that some people might not like a title with years. Sorry, I apologize to those people if by introducing years I stepped on their tastes. It certainly wasn't my intention to offend.) And, if I subcategorized too much, once I am finished, it should be strightforward to merge a couple cats if that's better. My main worry was to link well with categories "X by country" and with categories for different countries (i.e. issues that refer to 2 or more countries).
Dc76\talk 13:48, 2 February 2009 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Disamb-Class U.S. Congress articles
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:rename.
Kbdank71 14:23, 4 February 2009 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Rename. This is an assessment category for {{Project Congress}}. Just to make it a little clearer as to what it means. —
Markles 14:24, 29 January 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:New Zealand Independant crown entities
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 (empty).
Good Ol’factory(talk) 08:54, 3 February 2009 (UTC)reply
Speedy delete. Obvious mistake, and the category is empty.
ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 10:19, 30 January 2009 (UTC)reply
Speedy merge then delete -- obvious spelling error
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 neo-Nazis
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 One article, little growth potential.
72.95.242.209 (
talk) 06:40, 29 January 2009 (UTC)reply
Delete ocat by race/ethnicity + political viewpoint.
Carlossuarez46 (
talk) 00:44, 30 January 2009 (UTC)reply
Delete. Very problematic category of the kind that Wikipedia's community handles in the absolutely worst manner; a scandal waiting to happen. Better not keep that can of worms next to the can opener.
ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 10:23, 30 January 2009 (UTC)reply
Delete - One article. Obviously a useless category. --
Steven J. Anderson (
talk) 14:23, 30 January 2009 (UTC)reply
Delete. Seems like there's no hope for expansion.
DiverseMentality 00:18, 1 February 2009 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Professional sports leagues
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:keep.
Kbdank71 14:42, 4 February 2009 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: I m under the impression that this division is not (attempted to be) maintained on wikip.
Mayumashu (
talk) 05:01, 29 January 2009 (UTC)reply
Oppose Being professional or being amateur is highly defining of a sports league. In fact I would say its perhaps the most defining aspect of a sports league other than the sport it plays. -
Djsasso (
talk) 19:25, 29 January 2009 (UTC)reply
Oppose per Djsasso, although in some areas there will be gray zones.
Carlossuarez46 (
talk) 00:52, 30 January 2009 (UTC)reply
Oppose -- the converse is "amateur leagues". There is a marginal category where there are semi-professional clubs, but that is a problem for those categorising them to sort out.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 16:47, 31 January 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:Indoor soccer players
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:keep.
Kbdank71 14:44, 4 February 2009 (UTC)reply
?? It s part of a whole set of cat pages for a number of established
indoor soccer leagues. and this page does not list players by the surface they play on or if they played in a domed stadium or not -
indoor soccer is no less a sport than
futsal,
real tennis,
beach volleyball, etc. - should players by these sports be deleted too?
Mayumashu (
talk) 04:00, 30 January 2009 (UTC)reply
Keep Indoor soccer is a completely different sport than Outdoor soccer. As far as the rename goes I have no opinion one way or the other. Just like
ice hockey and
field hockey are two different sports. -
Djsasso (
talk) 04:30, 30 January 2009 (UTC)reply
Keep Just as
air hockey,
field hockey, and
ice hockey are significantly different sports with certain thematic similarities,
indoor soccer is a unique sport with its own rules and professional leagues. Are there places where the indoor game is referred to as "indoor football"? In the US, where the indoor game was invented, it's never called that so as not to be confused with
arena football. -
Dravecky (
talk) 17:05, 30 January 2009 (UTC)reply
Keep – if it is indeed a US-only game then perhaps it should be just 'Indoor soccer' throughout (per
Indoor soccer, which says it is called
futsal outside N America).
Occuli (
talk) 17:45, 30 January 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:French philosophers of the 20th century
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:rename.
Kbdank71 14:21, 4 February 2009 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Rename. To match common form, for people by century categories.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 00:49, 29 January 2009 (UTC)reply
Misspelt. At the very least, don't put a hyphen between "20th" and "century".
ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 10:25, 30 January 2009 (UTC)reply
Sorry but based on multiple discussions the hyphen is grammatically correct and all of the other philosopher categories are now of that form. Is the hyphen what you are calling the spelling error?
Vegaswikian (
talk) 02:51, 31 January 2009 (UTC)reply
Support If we rename to this format, the propsoed spelling is pedantically correct.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 16:48, 31 January 2009 (UTC)reply
Rename. All categories are being renamed to reflect correct hyphenation of adjectival phrases. Every time this comes up at CfD, someone complains of pedantry. At least they're not complaining about pederasty.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 08:51, 3 February 2009 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Southern Conference Hall of Fame inductees
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:delete.
Kbdank71 14:20, 4 February 2009 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Minor U.S. college sports award category; non-defining for inductees. All 8 persons in the category are currently in the list at
Southern Conference Hall of Fame.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 00:11, 29 January 2009 (UTC)reply
*KeepDelete: I'd hardly call the fourth oldest athletic conference (1921) in the United States minor. Former teams in the conference have gone on to form the
Southeastern Conference and the
Atlantic Coast Conference. Considering the number of teams and players that have participated in the SoCon, election to the Hall of Fame is certainly notable, and the category will expand as more members are inducted. --
Geologik (
talk) 02:05, 29 January 2009 (UTC)reply
I didn't say the athletic conference was minor; I said it was a minor award. We can quibble about how minor it is, but it's certainly not a defining award for the likes of
Jerry West and
Arnold Palmer. A list does the job nicely.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 09:12, 29 January 2009 (UTC)reply
I'm not so sure. Just today I've read a quote by
Frank Selvy who said it was a "huge honor and thrill" to be inducted. That sounds defining to me. Keep in mind this is a guy who is the only Division I player to score 100 points in a basketball game. He played with Jerry West on the Lakers. --
Geologik (
talk) 03:56, 30 January 2009 (UTC)reply
If I feel "honored and thrilled" to have been fortunate enough to have had enough money to go to Disney World, does that make it defining for me? If not, personal reaction to an event probably is not a great standard to try to use.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 04:48, 30 January 2009 (UTC)reply
I won't bother dignifying such a ridiculous correlation. Certainly the millions who visit Disney World yearly are comparable to to the few athletes inducted into a hall of fame. I've removed the category from all the offending articles. Congratulations. --
Geologik (
talk) 05:29, 30 January 2009 (UTC)reply
My whole point was to use an absurd example, because to use personal feelings about an event to determine how important it is ignores the real issue—what is the actual event in question? To use personal feelings about the event is pointless, since the event might be completely common, like going to D.W.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 08:57, 30 January 2009 (UTC)reply
Delete not defining and there are likely dozens if not hundreds of these awards and halls of fame - more cat clutter on bios with no enhanced searchability.
Carlossuarez46 (
talk) 00:51, 30 January 2009 (UTC)reply
Can you show me the other dozens if not hundres of awards and halls of fame? The argument of category clutter, which I don't agree with, appears more like
WP:IDL than anything. --
Geologik (
talk) 03:56, 30 January 2009 (UTC)reply
Ah, from the few I've looked at, you're either the nominator or usually the sole delete vote. If that's all it takes to get a category deleted that you don't care for then carry on. Please go ahead and delete this category as well. I give up. :) --
Geologik (
talk) 05:12, 30 January 2009 (UTC)reply
It would be nice if you could pin full credit on me, but there is a WP guideline about this, and the precedents linked to above go back long before I even began editing in WP. I wasn't even a WP member for the earliest examples of the 12 month period that I sampled, let alone when the guideline was set down.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 05:19, 30 January 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.