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:Populists
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 all. This is a follow-up from the
deletion of a "populist parties" subcategory. The same POV/subjective considerations apply for any categorization by the "populist" appellation. It's hard enough to categorize people and parties by political terms like "liberal" or "conservative". "Populist" is broadly the political support of "the people" versus "the elites", but that's quite unhelpful when it comes to categorization. What degree of support of "the people" is needed? What groups qualify as "the people"? What groups qualify as "the elite"? What degree of "anti-elitism" is needed? To some degree, almost all politicians who work within a democratic framework are "populists", depending on how you define these issues. One additional reason it's even harder than the conservative/liberal issues is that most "populists" don't self-identify as "populists"—the term is usually applied to them by other observers, so it's even more of a subjective assessment. Notified creator with {{
subst:cfd-notify}}Good Ol’factory(talk)23:21, 4 January 2009 (UTC)reply
I gingerly oppose. While marking a modern politician as a "populist" can be quite subjective, there exists an historical
Populist Party (United States), with members who could indisputably be placed inside a
Category: Populists. The organizations that call themselves "Populist" could be placed in
Category: Populist Parties. Furthermore, historians can and have made judgments on who qualifies as a "populist" (in
Classics, for instance, the
Gracchi are widely referred to by that label). ALL inclusions into these categories should, of course, be sourced as self-identified, or recognized by
RS's in the appropriate field.
CaveatLector TalkContrib07:25, 5 January 2009 (UTC)reply
I considered that approach, but the problems I saw were these: for these nationality/people categories at least, most of the categories (except the American one) have only one person in it and the people typically do not meet the standard you set out. If that approach were taken,
Category:Populists would probably be enough without the nationality subdivisions as there would only really be a handful of persons who could qualify. Because of the need for solid references to meet your standard, I suggest a list would be more appropriate so that the references can be easily presented. Category application is supposed to be self-evident, and using your standard it is not, suggesting we need a list. For the parties, including any party that uses the name "Populist" without any other standard would seems to be categorization by shared name.
Good Ol’factory(talk)08:53, 5 January 2009 (UTC)reply
Comment -- Purge Populist Paries of articles not including that name or (possibly) People's Party (or does that have its own category?). Where there is no clear link with such a party, this will be a POV category, which cannot remain. Accordingly Delete the rest.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
21:53, 5 January 2009 (UTC)reply
I took all the names of the populists by nationality section, so you can delete the categories like American Populists and Peruvian populists, unless you consider that due to being more American populists we should keep that one at least, like the
Category: Syrian Arab nationalists (there aren't any more nationality specific Arab nationalist categories). I also added the Gracchi and started adding politicians from the United States Populist Party to the Populists category. I will add a fully referenced List of Populists article, and some references on the articles of each of the refered populists articles to prove they belong there. And Using "People's Party as the standard for finding populist parties may be dangerous and erroneous...
user:lususromulus
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:American expatriate American football players in Germany
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 A quadruple intersection of nationality, expatriate status, sport, and country (or at least a triple intersection if you count "American expatriate" as one factor). For now could be upmerged to
Category:American expatriate sportspeople in Germany, though the target itself is a triple or quadruple intersection as well. There are a bunch more of these quadruple intersection categories for sportspeople so consider this a test nomination. Notified creator with {{
subst:cfd-notify}}Good Ol’factory(talk)22:56, 4 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:Oh Yeah! Cartoons
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:ChalkZone
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.
Opposed to the Third Reich
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.
Keep both - Otto, you appear to have overlooked the other, more important parent cat,
Category:German Resistance members. I think there is a good case to be made for keeping these, as they are the counterparts of the other sub-categories of that parent cat. Far from being monolithic, the German Resistance was a complex phenomenon. As the
main article says:
"The term German Resistance should not be understood as meaning that there was a united resistance movement in Germany at any time during the Nazi period, analogous to the more coordinated (for example) French Resistance. The German resistance consisted of small and usually isolated groups."
A double merge to include the resistance category is also acceptable. That would focus attention on what they did, which is a proper basis for categorization, rather than what they thought, which is not.
Otto4711 (
talk)
01:12, 5 January 2009 (UTC)reply
keep or rename both These are part of a pattern, one that deserves to be kept. This goes beyond 'opinion': these people took action. If these must be renamed, then I suggest:
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:Elecric trucks
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 I propose that the currently empty category
Category:Elecric trucks be deleted since it was only recently created (November 2008) and appears to simply be a misspelling of the existing (and non empty)
Category:Electric trucks. The latter correctly spelled category has the letter "t" in the first word of the cateogry name (and it should remain as is in my opinion).
67.86.73.252 (
talk)
17:32, 4 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:Vegetarian beers
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:no consensus, although vegaswikian brings up a valid point, why would be combine brands and buildings in the same category?
Kbdank7118:51, 16 January 2009 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Delete Well meaning but inappropriate cat. The majority of articles in the cat are breweries not beers, so the cat is misleading, and will likely remain so, as under
WP:PRODUCT we only exceptionally have an article on a product rather than the company. A better approach would be to create a
List of vegetarian beers. SilkTork *
YES!11:21, 4 January 2009 (UTC)reply
Rename/Keep - Some beers are suitable for vegetarians and some are not by virtue of their ingredeients. If you look around the internet there is substantial information about which beers are vegetarian (there are entire sites dedicated to it), so it seems logical to document beers and breweries with that information. With breweries like Coors and Anheuser-Busch their entire range is suitable for vegetarians so these breweries are vegetarian by nature because it's implicit in their brewing process (rather than specifically setting out to make a vegetarian beer). The category is informative about their products and adds information value to the articles. There may be a substantial number of people who want to know if the beer is vegetarian, just like coeliacs might want to know if an ale is organic.
Betty Logan (
talk)
23:42, 4 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:Europe songs
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:National Association baseball 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.
You are correct, it have to be "National Association of Professional Base Ball Players players by team" ? That's akward and long. Or should this be one of the rare cases that the category be abbreviated? Like say "NAPBBP players by team", that way the coinciding category could then be "NABBP players by team" ? Neonblaktalk - 03:57, 6 January 2009 (UTC)reply
Comment - In light of a recent CFD dealing with tv journalists (perhaps Good Ol’factory can provide the link), I would like to open up a different line of discussion. I certainly have no objection to categories for players in these leagues. But I do have reservations about individual categories for each of the teams -- a concern which pertains, of course, to ALL sports team categories.
The issue is very simple: category clutter -- the very same issue that the tv journalists CFD revolved around. In that case, the majority of participants felt that categories for individual media outlets were not a good idea. In that context, I raised the issue of sports team categories for comparison, and argued that if those categories were deemed acceptable, tv journalist by network categories should be as well.
I presented a very similar breakdown for players on one American (NFL) football team in the other CFD, and several editors who were opposed to the tv journalist cats remarked that the sports team cats were no better. So I would like to pose the question: Should sports team categories be exempted from the general concern vis-a-vis category clutter? If so, why? If not, why not?
Cgingold (
talk)
23:15, 7 January 2009 (UTC)reply
Aha, very interesting. (And clever, I might add.) I would like to know what you think. My sense is that in theory they should not be exempted if we have the general rule, but in practice you would never be able to gain a consensus for deleting the sportsteam categories. (Kind of like the high school alumni cats, IMO. They shouldn't exist, but good luck on getting them deleted.) So yes, we should have an exception for practical reasons, even though it may bother me that it's internally inconsistent. Or else we should completely reverse on the TV journalists issue.
Good Ol’factory(talk)23:26, 7 January 2009 (UTC)reply
Almost forgot about this little discussion... I'm glad to see you found it intriguing, GO. To answer your question, I do find it rather unsettling that professional athletes pile up so many team-categories -- 5 to 6 of them, on average, for these players. I mean, the more teams someone plays for, the less meaningful any one of those categories becomes. On the whole, I think they should be deleted across the board, though I would be open to considering exceptions for particular sports that may not adhere to the general pattern (assuming there are any).
Having said that, I have to confess that I erred in setting up a comparison between television journalists by network and professional athletes by team. Here's the thing: I just finished a survey of articles in
Category:American television journalists, in which I picked out 25 network-level journalists from the first page of names (the majority of whom aren't network-level). It turns out that the average number of networks they've worked for is less than 1.5 -- about one-fourth the number of teams-per-athlete. In other words, they are much more closely identified with their network(s) than most pro athletes with their teams. So in reality, it's unfair to the journalists to talk about their (potential) categories in the same discussion as the athletes.
Cgingold (
talk)
13:09, 12 January 2009 (UTC)reply
Agreed. I would be quite pleased to see all of the player by sports team categories disappeared but I also know there's no way in hell that the proposal would go through.
Otto4711 (
talk)
05:48, 8 January 2009 (UTC)reply
I, personally, like to use the players by team categories as a convenient navagational tool, but on the other hand, I believe that alone should not be a legitimate reason to keep them. I want to opperate within consensus and established parameters, if they go, they go, not going to lose sleep over them, I'd just switch over to list of players by team (which need work).Neonblaktalk - 04:26, 12 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:Music students by teacher
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 and Listify both (using Jadassohn's full name).
Nominator's rationale: The fundamental issue here is the use of categories vs. the use of lists. We have several
CFD precedents against the use of categories like these for J.S. Bach, J.P. Sweelinck, and F. F. Bruce (although apparently none of them was listified, which had been requested). Assuming that is still the prevailing sentiment, these should be converted from categories to lists, which would then belong in the renamed
Category:Lists of music students by teacher. Alternatively, or additionally, they could be converted to navboxes, as I suggested in the previous CFD. Notified category creators with {{
subst:cfd-notify}}Cgingold (
talk)
02:43, 4 January 2009 (UTC)reply
Keep (but rename using Jadassohn's full name). It's all very well saying "oh these should be lists instead of categories", but as you point out yourself previous categories of this kind have been deleted without being converted into lists. Surely if you choose to delete a category because you think a list would be better, then it is your responsibility to create the list first, rather than allow useful and notable information to be lost. --
RichardVeryard (
talk)
17:29, 4 January 2009 (UTC)reply
I certainly appreciate and share your concern, Richard -- which is exactly why I noted the failures in the previous instances. Ordinarily, when listification has been requested, a list is created by a closing admin immediately prior to deletion, but for some reason it didn't happen -- perhaps because both lists and navboxes were mentioned. However, I believe the lost info (i.e. the names) can still be recovered and converted to lists and/or navboxes.
Cgingold (
talk)
18:59, 4 January 2009 (UTC)reply
When the consensus in a discussion is "listify", there's now a procedure that's followed. The category is placed on the page
WP:CFD/W/M and the category is not deleted until someone creates the appropriate list. So there's no danger of deletion happening before the list being made if that's the result of the discussion (which it should be, in my opinion).
Good Ol’factory(talk)00:38, 5 January 2009 (UTC)reply
Keep (but with full name). I consider these as similar to Alumni categories. In some cases, pupil-teacher descents can be traced back a long way to very notable composers or otehr musicians of the distant past. I would not welcome this in respect of other disciplines. The F. F. Bruce list was in my view properly deleted without listification.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
23:18, 4 January 2009 (UTC)reply
Delete–Listify per nom. Reasons for keeping that have been given are good reasons to listify, but we consistently delete these
"people by person" categories in all their varieties. (I don't know why when a user suggests listification, many users just ignore the proposal and say "keep", then give reasons that in no way justify a "keep" over a "listify".)
Good Ol’factory(talk)00:34, 5 January 2009 (UTC)reply
Listify then delete per discussion (with the full name, as noted). Students of <teacher> just opens a door too broad for the category system. And when I consider the famous quote of
q:Isaac Newton: "If I have seen further it is only by standing on the shoulders of Giants." This could get way out of hand. -
jc3706:31, 26 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 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:Populists
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 all. This is a follow-up from the
deletion of a "populist parties" subcategory. The same POV/subjective considerations apply for any categorization by the "populist" appellation. It's hard enough to categorize people and parties by political terms like "liberal" or "conservative". "Populist" is broadly the political support of "the people" versus "the elites", but that's quite unhelpful when it comes to categorization. What degree of support of "the people" is needed? What groups qualify as "the people"? What groups qualify as "the elite"? What degree of "anti-elitism" is needed? To some degree, almost all politicians who work within a democratic framework are "populists", depending on how you define these issues. One additional reason it's even harder than the conservative/liberal issues is that most "populists" don't self-identify as "populists"—the term is usually applied to them by other observers, so it's even more of a subjective assessment. Notified creator with {{
subst:cfd-notify}}Good Ol’factory(talk)23:21, 4 January 2009 (UTC)reply
I gingerly oppose. While marking a modern politician as a "populist" can be quite subjective, there exists an historical
Populist Party (United States), with members who could indisputably be placed inside a
Category: Populists. The organizations that call themselves "Populist" could be placed in
Category: Populist Parties. Furthermore, historians can and have made judgments on who qualifies as a "populist" (in
Classics, for instance, the
Gracchi are widely referred to by that label). ALL inclusions into these categories should, of course, be sourced as self-identified, or recognized by
RS's in the appropriate field.
CaveatLector TalkContrib07:25, 5 January 2009 (UTC)reply
I considered that approach, but the problems I saw were these: for these nationality/people categories at least, most of the categories (except the American one) have only one person in it and the people typically do not meet the standard you set out. If that approach were taken,
Category:Populists would probably be enough without the nationality subdivisions as there would only really be a handful of persons who could qualify. Because of the need for solid references to meet your standard, I suggest a list would be more appropriate so that the references can be easily presented. Category application is supposed to be self-evident, and using your standard it is not, suggesting we need a list. For the parties, including any party that uses the name "Populist" without any other standard would seems to be categorization by shared name.
Good Ol’factory(talk)08:53, 5 January 2009 (UTC)reply
Comment -- Purge Populist Paries of articles not including that name or (possibly) People's Party (or does that have its own category?). Where there is no clear link with such a party, this will be a POV category, which cannot remain. Accordingly Delete the rest.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
21:53, 5 January 2009 (UTC)reply
I took all the names of the populists by nationality section, so you can delete the categories like American Populists and Peruvian populists, unless you consider that due to being more American populists we should keep that one at least, like the
Category: Syrian Arab nationalists (there aren't any more nationality specific Arab nationalist categories). I also added the Gracchi and started adding politicians from the United States Populist Party to the Populists category. I will add a fully referenced List of Populists article, and some references on the articles of each of the refered populists articles to prove they belong there. And Using "People's Party as the standard for finding populist parties may be dangerous and erroneous...
user:lususromulus
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:American expatriate American football players in Germany
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 A quadruple intersection of nationality, expatriate status, sport, and country (or at least a triple intersection if you count "American expatriate" as one factor). For now could be upmerged to
Category:American expatriate sportspeople in Germany, though the target itself is a triple or quadruple intersection as well. There are a bunch more of these quadruple intersection categories for sportspeople so consider this a test nomination. Notified creator with {{
subst:cfd-notify}}Good Ol’factory(talk)22:56, 4 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:Oh Yeah! Cartoons
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:ChalkZone
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.
Opposed to the Third Reich
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.
Keep both - Otto, you appear to have overlooked the other, more important parent cat,
Category:German Resistance members. I think there is a good case to be made for keeping these, as they are the counterparts of the other sub-categories of that parent cat. Far from being monolithic, the German Resistance was a complex phenomenon. As the
main article says:
"The term German Resistance should not be understood as meaning that there was a united resistance movement in Germany at any time during the Nazi period, analogous to the more coordinated (for example) French Resistance. The German resistance consisted of small and usually isolated groups."
A double merge to include the resistance category is also acceptable. That would focus attention on what they did, which is a proper basis for categorization, rather than what they thought, which is not.
Otto4711 (
talk)
01:12, 5 January 2009 (UTC)reply
keep or rename both These are part of a pattern, one that deserves to be kept. This goes beyond 'opinion': these people took action. If these must be renamed, then I suggest:
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:Elecric trucks
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 I propose that the currently empty category
Category:Elecric trucks be deleted since it was only recently created (November 2008) and appears to simply be a misspelling of the existing (and non empty)
Category:Electric trucks. The latter correctly spelled category has the letter "t" in the first word of the cateogry name (and it should remain as is in my opinion).
67.86.73.252 (
talk)
17:32, 4 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:Vegetarian beers
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:no consensus, although vegaswikian brings up a valid point, why would be combine brands and buildings in the same category?
Kbdank7118:51, 16 January 2009 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Delete Well meaning but inappropriate cat. The majority of articles in the cat are breweries not beers, so the cat is misleading, and will likely remain so, as under
WP:PRODUCT we only exceptionally have an article on a product rather than the company. A better approach would be to create a
List of vegetarian beers. SilkTork *
YES!11:21, 4 January 2009 (UTC)reply
Rename/Keep - Some beers are suitable for vegetarians and some are not by virtue of their ingredeients. If you look around the internet there is substantial information about which beers are vegetarian (there are entire sites dedicated to it), so it seems logical to document beers and breweries with that information. With breweries like Coors and Anheuser-Busch their entire range is suitable for vegetarians so these breweries are vegetarian by nature because it's implicit in their brewing process (rather than specifically setting out to make a vegetarian beer). The category is informative about their products and adds information value to the articles. There may be a substantial number of people who want to know if the beer is vegetarian, just like coeliacs might want to know if an ale is organic.
Betty Logan (
talk)
23:42, 4 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:Europe songs
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:National Association baseball 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.
You are correct, it have to be "National Association of Professional Base Ball Players players by team" ? That's akward and long. Or should this be one of the rare cases that the category be abbreviated? Like say "NAPBBP players by team", that way the coinciding category could then be "NABBP players by team" ? Neonblaktalk - 03:57, 6 January 2009 (UTC)reply
Comment - In light of a recent CFD dealing with tv journalists (perhaps Good Ol’factory can provide the link), I would like to open up a different line of discussion. I certainly have no objection to categories for players in these leagues. But I do have reservations about individual categories for each of the teams -- a concern which pertains, of course, to ALL sports team categories.
The issue is very simple: category clutter -- the very same issue that the tv journalists CFD revolved around. In that case, the majority of participants felt that categories for individual media outlets were not a good idea. In that context, I raised the issue of sports team categories for comparison, and argued that if those categories were deemed acceptable, tv journalist by network categories should be as well.
I presented a very similar breakdown for players on one American (NFL) football team in the other CFD, and several editors who were opposed to the tv journalist cats remarked that the sports team cats were no better. So I would like to pose the question: Should sports team categories be exempted from the general concern vis-a-vis category clutter? If so, why? If not, why not?
Cgingold (
talk)
23:15, 7 January 2009 (UTC)reply
Aha, very interesting. (And clever, I might add.) I would like to know what you think. My sense is that in theory they should not be exempted if we have the general rule, but in practice you would never be able to gain a consensus for deleting the sportsteam categories. (Kind of like the high school alumni cats, IMO. They shouldn't exist, but good luck on getting them deleted.) So yes, we should have an exception for practical reasons, even though it may bother me that it's internally inconsistent. Or else we should completely reverse on the TV journalists issue.
Good Ol’factory(talk)23:26, 7 January 2009 (UTC)reply
Almost forgot about this little discussion... I'm glad to see you found it intriguing, GO. To answer your question, I do find it rather unsettling that professional athletes pile up so many team-categories -- 5 to 6 of them, on average, for these players. I mean, the more teams someone plays for, the less meaningful any one of those categories becomes. On the whole, I think they should be deleted across the board, though I would be open to considering exceptions for particular sports that may not adhere to the general pattern (assuming there are any).
Having said that, I have to confess that I erred in setting up a comparison between television journalists by network and professional athletes by team. Here's the thing: I just finished a survey of articles in
Category:American television journalists, in which I picked out 25 network-level journalists from the first page of names (the majority of whom aren't network-level). It turns out that the average number of networks they've worked for is less than 1.5 -- about one-fourth the number of teams-per-athlete. In other words, they are much more closely identified with their network(s) than most pro athletes with their teams. So in reality, it's unfair to the journalists to talk about their (potential) categories in the same discussion as the athletes.
Cgingold (
talk)
13:09, 12 January 2009 (UTC)reply
Agreed. I would be quite pleased to see all of the player by sports team categories disappeared but I also know there's no way in hell that the proposal would go through.
Otto4711 (
talk)
05:48, 8 January 2009 (UTC)reply
I, personally, like to use the players by team categories as a convenient navagational tool, but on the other hand, I believe that alone should not be a legitimate reason to keep them. I want to opperate within consensus and established parameters, if they go, they go, not going to lose sleep over them, I'd just switch over to list of players by team (which need work).Neonblaktalk - 04:26, 12 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:Music students by teacher
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 and Listify both (using Jadassohn's full name).
Nominator's rationale: The fundamental issue here is the use of categories vs. the use of lists. We have several
CFD precedents against the use of categories like these for J.S. Bach, J.P. Sweelinck, and F. F. Bruce (although apparently none of them was listified, which had been requested). Assuming that is still the prevailing sentiment, these should be converted from categories to lists, which would then belong in the renamed
Category:Lists of music students by teacher. Alternatively, or additionally, they could be converted to navboxes, as I suggested in the previous CFD. Notified category creators with {{
subst:cfd-notify}}Cgingold (
talk)
02:43, 4 January 2009 (UTC)reply
Keep (but rename using Jadassohn's full name). It's all very well saying "oh these should be lists instead of categories", but as you point out yourself previous categories of this kind have been deleted without being converted into lists. Surely if you choose to delete a category because you think a list would be better, then it is your responsibility to create the list first, rather than allow useful and notable information to be lost. --
RichardVeryard (
talk)
17:29, 4 January 2009 (UTC)reply
I certainly appreciate and share your concern, Richard -- which is exactly why I noted the failures in the previous instances. Ordinarily, when listification has been requested, a list is created by a closing admin immediately prior to deletion, but for some reason it didn't happen -- perhaps because both lists and navboxes were mentioned. However, I believe the lost info (i.e. the names) can still be recovered and converted to lists and/or navboxes.
Cgingold (
talk)
18:59, 4 January 2009 (UTC)reply
When the consensus in a discussion is "listify", there's now a procedure that's followed. The category is placed on the page
WP:CFD/W/M and the category is not deleted until someone creates the appropriate list. So there's no danger of deletion happening before the list being made if that's the result of the discussion (which it should be, in my opinion).
Good Ol’factory(talk)00:38, 5 January 2009 (UTC)reply
Keep (but with full name). I consider these as similar to Alumni categories. In some cases, pupil-teacher descents can be traced back a long way to very notable composers or otehr musicians of the distant past. I would not welcome this in respect of other disciplines. The F. F. Bruce list was in my view properly deleted without listification.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
23:18, 4 January 2009 (UTC)reply
Delete–Listify per nom. Reasons for keeping that have been given are good reasons to listify, but we consistently delete these
"people by person" categories in all their varieties. (I don't know why when a user suggests listification, many users just ignore the proposal and say "keep", then give reasons that in no way justify a "keep" over a "listify".)
Good Ol’factory(talk)00:34, 5 January 2009 (UTC)reply
Listify then delete per discussion (with the full name, as noted). Students of <teacher> just opens a door too broad for the category system. And when I consider the famous quote of
q:Isaac Newton: "If I have seen further it is only by standing on the shoulders of Giants." This could get way out of hand. -
jc3706:31, 26 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.