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 to both parent categories. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs) 18:41, 14 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Upmerge as nom and also to
Category:Converts from Islam. These are unlikely to be large categories. Nevertheless, I hope this is not putting the people listed in harm's way, since Sharia law permits apostates to be murdered without sanction and indeed commends it.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 23:34, 7 February 2010 (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:Family members of the Sikh Gurus
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. —
ξxplicit 08:54, 13 February 2010 (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:Lithuanian Aviation constructors
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. —
ξxplicit 21:13, 14 February 2010 (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:Heroes' Days
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. —
ξxplicit 08:54, 13 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Reply. Having just read the previous discussion, I can find no enthusiasm there for keeping the category in its current form; in fact, there appears to have no editor advocating a straightforward "keep". That seems to me to be evidence of a consensus that the category is problematic, and while I'd prefer a longer delay after a "keep" closure, three months seems to me to be a reasonable time to revisit a category which all agree is flawed. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs) 21:09, 6 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Delete. We've struggled with this one a number of times. I've suggested renames in the past, but it's been pointed out that the suggestions would create category names that are relatively overbroad and meaningless (e.g., "Observances that honor individual people"). I agree, and think that the best solution is to delete this category and put it out of its oft-nominated misery.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 21:22, 7 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Delete Looking through various entries in the category, I think they're reasonably supported through national observance categories and don't think the non-existence of this problematic category would be a great loss.
AllyD (
talk) 21:13, 8 February 2010 (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.
Cyclists by 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.
Nominator's rationale: Another set of ill-conceived sportspeople-by-century categories. The bicycle dates only from the late 19th-century, so the era of notable cyclists has lasted for less than 120 years. It makes no sense to divide a 120-year period into blocs of 100 years, and since there seems to be no logic in dividing cyclists by decade, these categories have no use as containers for shorter periods. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs) 19:55, 5 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Merge Along with most per century and per decade categories that should be deleted or - as in this case - merged. We should add something about this to
Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories).
Debresser (
talk) 18:35, 6 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Merge -- We do not do "current" and "former" categories and this is letting them in by the backdoor.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 23:35, 7 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Merge per nom. By-century is of little use in a discipline of such a short existence. I don't think it's a navigational help.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:53, 9 February 2010 (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.
Racehorse owners and breeders by 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.
Nominator's rationale:Neutral for now. This is a test nomination, to test one point of what I think is a consensus emerging in the CFD discussions on people-by-century categories: that by-century categorisation of people is appropriate only when the biographical articles concerned are spread over many centuries, but not when the group is only 150 years old, as applies with many sports. This isn't quite the perfect test case I hoped it would be, because because it includes only two by-century categories ... but since organised
horse-racing dates back at least five centuries (see e.g.
Horseracing in Great Britain#History), it seems to me that there should be related biographical articles from five centuries, and that by-century categories may be an appropriate way of organising them. However, as with other sport-related categories, wikipedia's
recentist bias means that most of the biographical articles relate to the late 20th and early 21st centuries, and by-century categorisation of a group dominated by the last 50 years imposes an arbitrary break in listings, as well as causing category clutter by adding two extra categories to the many people whose careers span the two centuries. In some previous discussions, Johnbod suggested that by-century categorisation of people should be applied only up to the 19th-century; adopting that principle in this case would mean merging the two sub-cats, but keeping the parent
Category:Racehorse owners and breeders by century for 19th-century and earlier. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
Merge Along with most per century and per decade categories that should be deleted or - as in this case - merged. We should add something about this to
Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories).
Debresser (
talk) 18:35, 6 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Merge -- We do not do "current" and "former" categories and this is letting them in by the backdoor.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 23:36, 7 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Merge per nom, who summarizes the issue well. These are akin to the sportspeople-by-century categories that have recently been deleted.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:52, 9 February 2010 (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.
Speed skaters by 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.
Nominator's rationale: Another set of ill-conceived sportspeople-by-century categories. Although speed-skating goes back many centuries, it only became an organised sport in the mid-to-late 19th-century, and since it's organised sport which throws up notable sportspeople (through record-keeping, race-reporting and all the other forms of written coverage which establish notability), the era of notable speed-skaters has lasted for about 150 years (or less, depending on what events we regard as landmarks). It makes no sense to divide a 150-year period into blocs of 100 years, and since there seems to be no logic in dividing speed-skaters by decade, these categories have no use as containers for shorter periods. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs) 11:35, 5 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Note. I have just added the by-gender sub-cats of
Category:20th-century speed skaters to the nomination, having missed them earlier. I currently have no view either way on whether by-gender categories are appropriate for speed skaters but there is no
Category:Female speed skaters or
Category:Male speed skaters and it seems wrong to use this CfD to create them, so the proposed upmerger loses the by-gender categorisation. In any case, these five categories contain exactly two articles, so deleting the by-gender categorisation creates no barrier to new gendered categories of speed skaters if there is a consensus to establish them. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs) 12:39, 5 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom, although I have no opinion on whether there should be gender categories.
WFCforLife (
talk) 13:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Merge -- We do not do "current" and "former" categories and this is letting them in by the backdoor, but we should have gender categories, as men and women do not compete together.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 23:36, 7 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Comment -- As
Peterkingiron said, men and women do not compete together, so they should have separate categories.
Maurreen (
talk) 22:20, 9 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Merge/delete as nominated. I don't believe any of these sportspeople-by-century categories are well-conceived, at least none that I have seen so far. I agree that this discussion doesn't have to have any bearing on whether they are divided by gender in a non-by-century way in the future.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:49, 9 February 2010 (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.
Radio personalities by 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.
Nominator's rationale: Broadcast radio only
began at the end of 1919, so it's only 90s years old. It makes no sense to divide a 90-year-old topic into blocks of 100 years, except as containers for blocs of shorter period. However, categorising this occupation by decade makes no sense, bewcause radio careers do not fit neatly into decades, and applying by-decade categorisation would cause horrible category-clutter, not just on a few standout cases such as
Alistair Cooke, but on hundreds of others such as
Terry Wogan,
Jimmy Young,
Tony Blackburn,
John Peel, or
Clonmel's legendary opera-addict
Tommy O'Brien (who disgracefully has no wikipedia biography). --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs) 10:41, 5 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Delete. Although I would like to go on record as saying that John Peel was a standout radio personality.
WFCforLife (
talk) 13:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Merge -- We do not do "current" and "former" categories and this is letting them in by the backdoor.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 23:38, 7 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Delete/merge as nominated. Now media people by century? This is not a phrase that is typically in common usage by me, but WTF?
Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:50, 9 February 2010 (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:Purple Stereo Countdown albums
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: All articles previously in this category have been deleted through CSD or PROD. Purple Stereo Countdown is a non-notable indie record label, so this category is unlikely to be needed for viable articles in the foreseeable future. Some articles which formerly populated this category:
Bucket Full of Fear,
Comaphoria (album),
The Fantastical Flute Fanatic,
Ambient Works Vol. 1 and others.
Wine GuyTalk 08:32, 5 February 2010 (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:Football (soccer) laws
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale The laws are known as the "Laws of the game". Clearly we cannot have "the game", so I have instead put "association football" there. In the event that the CfD below fails, I would counter propose changing the category to
Category:Laws of football (soccer).
WFCforLife (
talk) 03:59, 5 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Oppose It should be "rule" not "law" ... since there are actual "laws" as defined as things that get you arrested by a police officer, concerning soccer.
70.29.210.242 (
talk) 05:23, 5 February 2010 (UTC)reply
While I understand your point, they are referred to as the
Laws of the game, and therefore the category should probably follow the parent article. On the basis that nobody is going to see the category and think they are going to get arrested for disobeying its contents, there's no ambiguity.
WFCforLife (
talk) 05:48, 5 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Comment – the category should match the article, but
Laws of the game will not do for the article as it is obviously ambiguous. That is, the article should be moved first. There is
Laws of rugby league so
Laws of association football would seem reasonable. (I don't myself see anything wrong with using Law in this context. The referee is the equivalent of the police officer.)
Occuli (
talk) 09:37, 5 February 2010 (UTC)reply
I'm not saying you're right or wrong, but the previous move discussion there ended as a keep, on the basis that they are both commonly and officially known as the "Laws of the Game". For the category, I think both
Category:Laws of the Game and
Category:Laws of the Game (association football) would be inappropriate, so I see little need to wait for any future move.
WFCforLife (
talk) 09:56, 5 February 2010 (UTC)reply
I am right: to say that 'Laws of the Game' refers exclusively to association football is highly POV. Possibly in some parts of the UK it does, but it might equally refer to the etiquette involved in kerb-crawling (see
the game, in particular
The Game). In that case I support the rename, on the grounds that category names should always be unambiguous.
Occuli (
talk) 10:28, 5 February 2010 (UTC)reply
I recommend copy-pasting that post to
WP:Requested moves- it's a fair argument. But the fact that there are laws for Rugby League and other sports has no bearing whatsoever on this category name.
WFCforLife (
talk) 15:43, 13 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Sure, it doesn't make any difference to the category name. Just adding to the info already stated. LunarLander//talk// 21:10, 13 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Comment- regardless of whether the consensus is to rename or to keep the current form, please can the closing admin take the discussion below into account when closing. It would be inappropriate to leave "football (soccer)" in the name.
WFCforLife (
talk) 16:02, 13 February 2010 (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:Association football
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 all. —
ξxplicit 08:54, 13 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Propose renaming all subcategories to swap "football (soccer)" for "association football" as follows:
Nominator's rationale to follow the convention set by the parent category, and the parent article. I have deliberately omitted the "laws" category, because I am going to suggest a new name entirely. I have also taken the trouble to write a succinct but useful description of the naming convention, which I applied at the same time as adding the CFD tag.
WFCforLife (
talk) 03:54, 5 February 2010 (UTC)reply
The text of the aforementioned header is as follows:
Association football is the official name of the sport governed by the International Federation of Association football (
FIFA). It is known in some parts of the world as "soccer"; a derivative of the word "association". In others, it is known simply as "football". For more information on the sport, see
association football. For information about all sports known as football, see
football. For information about usage of the words "football" and "soccer" by country, see
football (word).WFCforLife (
talk) 04:00, 5 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Rename all as nominated, and indeed kudos to WFC.
Occuli (
talk) 10:31, 5 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Rename all including the updated ones.
Occuli (
talk) 16:57, 6 February 2010 (UTC)reply
I have updated the nom with worldwide categories that I had missed. I will personally inform previous contributors to the discussion, to ensure that their opinions are not changed by these additions.
WFCforLife (
talk) 06:00, 6 February 2010 (UTC)reply
I just want to confirm that my opinion remains the same for the newly-included categories and, in fact, for any similar category that is not country, region, or competition-specific. –Black Falcon(
talk) 08:18, 6 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Support Renames to match title of parent article.
Alansohn (
talk) 01:24, 7 February 2010 (UTC)reply
REname all -- I hope we have an end to the long running saga over what to call soccer. I expect there will be some follow ups to this.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 23:43, 7 February 2010 (UTC)reply
If by follow ups you mean further noms, that's possible. The work isn't done, but the convention appears to have finally been settled. For international use, such as the categories I've nominated, it's "association football". If specific to Europe and South America it's "football", provided the context is clear. In North America and Oceania it's plain "soccer", with the exception of Australia, where "Football (soccer)" quite accurately reflects the
situation there.
WFCforLife (
talk) 02:58, 8 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Rename all, but leave redirects for soccer at least. While I think the proposed scheme is the best solution, I worry some people will not understand what "association football" means, especially in the US. Leaving behind "Category:Soccer terminology" as a category redirect might help.--
Mike Selinker (
talk) 09:52, 8 February 2010 (UTC)reply
I agree. I'm sure this will prove uncontroversial and consensus can be reached for that change.
WFCforLife (
talk) 18:26, 9 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Rename all per reasons already given. I've been in favor of this for a while.
JohnnyPolo24 (
talk) 12:48, 9 February 2010 (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:Lists of college basketball announcers
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. —
ξxplicit 21:13, 14 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Found as an incomplete speedy doing December cleanup. Relisting.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 00:53, 5 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Rename per nom. AFAICS, all the articles in this category relate to USAnia. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs) 18:57, 14 February 2010 (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:College basketball tournaments
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:do not rename.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 09:46, 20 February 2010 (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:North-South Expressway Networks
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Found as an incomplete speedy from December. Relisting.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 00:45, 5 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Rename to
Category:North-South Expressway Networks, Malaysia. I don't like the use of endashes in category names, but with or without the endash this category name is deeply ambiguous. It refers to
North–South Expressway, Malaysia, but there's no way for the reader to know that without opening up the category page: I assumed at first glance that it referred to expressways anywhere in the world running on a north-south axis. adding Malaysia clarifies the purpose of this category. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs) 10:48, 5 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Rename using en-dash; don't know the proper name otherwise. Use of the en-dash is a speedy criterion that was adopted after much debate. The easiest solution is to just have category redirects on the hyphenated versions.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 05:25, 6 February 2010 (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:African American Muslims
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.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 08:17, 23 February 2010 (UTC)reply
keep 'African American' without a hyphen is the agreed on name pattern for all such categories in WP. See the parent
Category:African Americans and its children and grandchildren.
Hmains (
talk) 17:28, 5 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Without a hyphen when it's a noun. With a hyphen when it's an adjective.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 05:23, 6 February 2010 (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:Members of the Socialist Party USA
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. —
ξxplicit 08:54, 13 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Found as incomplete doing December cleanup. May have been intended to be a part of
this discussion.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 00:29, 5 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Rename per nom. This category had deliberately been excluded pending verification that all constituents could, in fact, be deemed "politicians," which is indeed the case, but for which the tedium of confirmation is difficult to exaggerate.-
choster (
talk) 02:49, 5 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Oppose -- Not every party member is a politician. They may be a member, but notable for other reasons.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 23:46, 7 February 2010 (UTC)reply
In which case they shouldn't be in the category!
Good Ol’factory(talk) 02:55, 8 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Rename per nom. Should only contain politicians. We don't categorize people by mere membership in a political party.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 02:55, 8 February 2010 (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:Merge to both parent categories. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs) 18:41, 14 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Upmerge as nom and also to
Category:Converts from Islam. These are unlikely to be large categories. Nevertheless, I hope this is not putting the people listed in harm's way, since Sharia law permits apostates to be murdered without sanction and indeed commends it.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 23:34, 7 February 2010 (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:Family members of the Sikh Gurus
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. —
ξxplicit 08:54, 13 February 2010 (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:Lithuanian Aviation constructors
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. —
ξxplicit 21:13, 14 February 2010 (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:Heroes' Days
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. —
ξxplicit 08:54, 13 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Reply. Having just read the previous discussion, I can find no enthusiasm there for keeping the category in its current form; in fact, there appears to have no editor advocating a straightforward "keep". That seems to me to be evidence of a consensus that the category is problematic, and while I'd prefer a longer delay after a "keep" closure, three months seems to me to be a reasonable time to revisit a category which all agree is flawed. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs) 21:09, 6 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Delete. We've struggled with this one a number of times. I've suggested renames in the past, but it's been pointed out that the suggestions would create category names that are relatively overbroad and meaningless (e.g., "Observances that honor individual people"). I agree, and think that the best solution is to delete this category and put it out of its oft-nominated misery.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 21:22, 7 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Delete Looking through various entries in the category, I think they're reasonably supported through national observance categories and don't think the non-existence of this problematic category would be a great loss.
AllyD (
talk) 21:13, 8 February 2010 (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.
Cyclists by 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.
Nominator's rationale: Another set of ill-conceived sportspeople-by-century categories. The bicycle dates only from the late 19th-century, so the era of notable cyclists has lasted for less than 120 years. It makes no sense to divide a 120-year period into blocs of 100 years, and since there seems to be no logic in dividing cyclists by decade, these categories have no use as containers for shorter periods. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs) 19:55, 5 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Merge Along with most per century and per decade categories that should be deleted or - as in this case - merged. We should add something about this to
Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories).
Debresser (
talk) 18:35, 6 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Merge -- We do not do "current" and "former" categories and this is letting them in by the backdoor.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 23:35, 7 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Merge per nom. By-century is of little use in a discipline of such a short existence. I don't think it's a navigational help.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:53, 9 February 2010 (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.
Racehorse owners and breeders by 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.
Nominator's rationale:Neutral for now. This is a test nomination, to test one point of what I think is a consensus emerging in the CFD discussions on people-by-century categories: that by-century categorisation of people is appropriate only when the biographical articles concerned are spread over many centuries, but not when the group is only 150 years old, as applies with many sports. This isn't quite the perfect test case I hoped it would be, because because it includes only two by-century categories ... but since organised
horse-racing dates back at least five centuries (see e.g.
Horseracing in Great Britain#History), it seems to me that there should be related biographical articles from five centuries, and that by-century categories may be an appropriate way of organising them. However, as with other sport-related categories, wikipedia's
recentist bias means that most of the biographical articles relate to the late 20th and early 21st centuries, and by-century categorisation of a group dominated by the last 50 years imposes an arbitrary break in listings, as well as causing category clutter by adding two extra categories to the many people whose careers span the two centuries. In some previous discussions, Johnbod suggested that by-century categorisation of people should be applied only up to the 19th-century; adopting that principle in this case would mean merging the two sub-cats, but keeping the parent
Category:Racehorse owners and breeders by century for 19th-century and earlier. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
Merge Along with most per century and per decade categories that should be deleted or - as in this case - merged. We should add something about this to
Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories).
Debresser (
talk) 18:35, 6 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Merge -- We do not do "current" and "former" categories and this is letting them in by the backdoor.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 23:36, 7 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Merge per nom, who summarizes the issue well. These are akin to the sportspeople-by-century categories that have recently been deleted.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:52, 9 February 2010 (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.
Speed skaters by 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.
Nominator's rationale: Another set of ill-conceived sportspeople-by-century categories. Although speed-skating goes back many centuries, it only became an organised sport in the mid-to-late 19th-century, and since it's organised sport which throws up notable sportspeople (through record-keeping, race-reporting and all the other forms of written coverage which establish notability), the era of notable speed-skaters has lasted for about 150 years (or less, depending on what events we regard as landmarks). It makes no sense to divide a 150-year period into blocs of 100 years, and since there seems to be no logic in dividing speed-skaters by decade, these categories have no use as containers for shorter periods. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs) 11:35, 5 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Note. I have just added the by-gender sub-cats of
Category:20th-century speed skaters to the nomination, having missed them earlier. I currently have no view either way on whether by-gender categories are appropriate for speed skaters but there is no
Category:Female speed skaters or
Category:Male speed skaters and it seems wrong to use this CfD to create them, so the proposed upmerger loses the by-gender categorisation. In any case, these five categories contain exactly two articles, so deleting the by-gender categorisation creates no barrier to new gendered categories of speed skaters if there is a consensus to establish them. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs) 12:39, 5 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom, although I have no opinion on whether there should be gender categories.
WFCforLife (
talk) 13:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Merge -- We do not do "current" and "former" categories and this is letting them in by the backdoor, but we should have gender categories, as men and women do not compete together.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 23:36, 7 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Comment -- As
Peterkingiron said, men and women do not compete together, so they should have separate categories.
Maurreen (
talk) 22:20, 9 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Merge/delete as nominated. I don't believe any of these sportspeople-by-century categories are well-conceived, at least none that I have seen so far. I agree that this discussion doesn't have to have any bearing on whether they are divided by gender in a non-by-century way in the future.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:49, 9 February 2010 (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.
Radio personalities by 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.
Nominator's rationale: Broadcast radio only
began at the end of 1919, so it's only 90s years old. It makes no sense to divide a 90-year-old topic into blocks of 100 years, except as containers for blocs of shorter period. However, categorising this occupation by decade makes no sense, bewcause radio careers do not fit neatly into decades, and applying by-decade categorisation would cause horrible category-clutter, not just on a few standout cases such as
Alistair Cooke, but on hundreds of others such as
Terry Wogan,
Jimmy Young,
Tony Blackburn,
John Peel, or
Clonmel's legendary opera-addict
Tommy O'Brien (who disgracefully has no wikipedia biography). --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs) 10:41, 5 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Delete. Although I would like to go on record as saying that John Peel was a standout radio personality.
WFCforLife (
talk) 13:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Merge -- We do not do "current" and "former" categories and this is letting them in by the backdoor.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 23:38, 7 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Delete/merge as nominated. Now media people by century? This is not a phrase that is typically in common usage by me, but WTF?
Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:50, 9 February 2010 (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:Purple Stereo Countdown albums
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: All articles previously in this category have been deleted through CSD or PROD. Purple Stereo Countdown is a non-notable indie record label, so this category is unlikely to be needed for viable articles in the foreseeable future. Some articles which formerly populated this category:
Bucket Full of Fear,
Comaphoria (album),
The Fantastical Flute Fanatic,
Ambient Works Vol. 1 and others.
Wine GuyTalk 08:32, 5 February 2010 (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:Football (soccer) laws
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale The laws are known as the "Laws of the game". Clearly we cannot have "the game", so I have instead put "association football" there. In the event that the CfD below fails, I would counter propose changing the category to
Category:Laws of football (soccer).
WFCforLife (
talk) 03:59, 5 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Oppose It should be "rule" not "law" ... since there are actual "laws" as defined as things that get you arrested by a police officer, concerning soccer.
70.29.210.242 (
talk) 05:23, 5 February 2010 (UTC)reply
While I understand your point, they are referred to as the
Laws of the game, and therefore the category should probably follow the parent article. On the basis that nobody is going to see the category and think they are going to get arrested for disobeying its contents, there's no ambiguity.
WFCforLife (
talk) 05:48, 5 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Comment – the category should match the article, but
Laws of the game will not do for the article as it is obviously ambiguous. That is, the article should be moved first. There is
Laws of rugby league so
Laws of association football would seem reasonable. (I don't myself see anything wrong with using Law in this context. The referee is the equivalent of the police officer.)
Occuli (
talk) 09:37, 5 February 2010 (UTC)reply
I'm not saying you're right or wrong, but the previous move discussion there ended as a keep, on the basis that they are both commonly and officially known as the "Laws of the Game". For the category, I think both
Category:Laws of the Game and
Category:Laws of the Game (association football) would be inappropriate, so I see little need to wait for any future move.
WFCforLife (
talk) 09:56, 5 February 2010 (UTC)reply
I am right: to say that 'Laws of the Game' refers exclusively to association football is highly POV. Possibly in some parts of the UK it does, but it might equally refer to the etiquette involved in kerb-crawling (see
the game, in particular
The Game). In that case I support the rename, on the grounds that category names should always be unambiguous.
Occuli (
talk) 10:28, 5 February 2010 (UTC)reply
I recommend copy-pasting that post to
WP:Requested moves- it's a fair argument. But the fact that there are laws for Rugby League and other sports has no bearing whatsoever on this category name.
WFCforLife (
talk) 15:43, 13 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Sure, it doesn't make any difference to the category name. Just adding to the info already stated. LunarLander//talk// 21:10, 13 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Comment- regardless of whether the consensus is to rename or to keep the current form, please can the closing admin take the discussion below into account when closing. It would be inappropriate to leave "football (soccer)" in the name.
WFCforLife (
talk) 16:02, 13 February 2010 (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:Association football
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 all. —
ξxplicit 08:54, 13 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Propose renaming all subcategories to swap "football (soccer)" for "association football" as follows:
Nominator's rationale to follow the convention set by the parent category, and the parent article. I have deliberately omitted the "laws" category, because I am going to suggest a new name entirely. I have also taken the trouble to write a succinct but useful description of the naming convention, which I applied at the same time as adding the CFD tag.
WFCforLife (
talk) 03:54, 5 February 2010 (UTC)reply
The text of the aforementioned header is as follows:
Association football is the official name of the sport governed by the International Federation of Association football (
FIFA). It is known in some parts of the world as "soccer"; a derivative of the word "association". In others, it is known simply as "football". For more information on the sport, see
association football. For information about all sports known as football, see
football. For information about usage of the words "football" and "soccer" by country, see
football (word).WFCforLife (
talk) 04:00, 5 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Rename all as nominated, and indeed kudos to WFC.
Occuli (
talk) 10:31, 5 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Rename all including the updated ones.
Occuli (
talk) 16:57, 6 February 2010 (UTC)reply
I have updated the nom with worldwide categories that I had missed. I will personally inform previous contributors to the discussion, to ensure that their opinions are not changed by these additions.
WFCforLife (
talk) 06:00, 6 February 2010 (UTC)reply
I just want to confirm that my opinion remains the same for the newly-included categories and, in fact, for any similar category that is not country, region, or competition-specific. –Black Falcon(
talk) 08:18, 6 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Support Renames to match title of parent article.
Alansohn (
talk) 01:24, 7 February 2010 (UTC)reply
REname all -- I hope we have an end to the long running saga over what to call soccer. I expect there will be some follow ups to this.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 23:43, 7 February 2010 (UTC)reply
If by follow ups you mean further noms, that's possible. The work isn't done, but the convention appears to have finally been settled. For international use, such as the categories I've nominated, it's "association football". If specific to Europe and South America it's "football", provided the context is clear. In North America and Oceania it's plain "soccer", with the exception of Australia, where "Football (soccer)" quite accurately reflects the
situation there.
WFCforLife (
talk) 02:58, 8 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Rename all, but leave redirects for soccer at least. While I think the proposed scheme is the best solution, I worry some people will not understand what "association football" means, especially in the US. Leaving behind "Category:Soccer terminology" as a category redirect might help.--
Mike Selinker (
talk) 09:52, 8 February 2010 (UTC)reply
I agree. I'm sure this will prove uncontroversial and consensus can be reached for that change.
WFCforLife (
talk) 18:26, 9 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Rename all per reasons already given. I've been in favor of this for a while.
JohnnyPolo24 (
talk) 12:48, 9 February 2010 (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:Lists of college basketball announcers
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. —
ξxplicit 21:13, 14 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Found as an incomplete speedy doing December cleanup. Relisting.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 00:53, 5 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Rename per nom. AFAICS, all the articles in this category relate to USAnia. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs) 18:57, 14 February 2010 (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:College basketball tournaments
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:do not rename.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 09:46, 20 February 2010 (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:North-South Expressway Networks
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Found as an incomplete speedy from December. Relisting.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 00:45, 5 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Rename to
Category:North-South Expressway Networks, Malaysia. I don't like the use of endashes in category names, but with or without the endash this category name is deeply ambiguous. It refers to
North–South Expressway, Malaysia, but there's no way for the reader to know that without opening up the category page: I assumed at first glance that it referred to expressways anywhere in the world running on a north-south axis. adding Malaysia clarifies the purpose of this category. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs) 10:48, 5 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Rename using en-dash; don't know the proper name otherwise. Use of the en-dash is a speedy criterion that was adopted after much debate. The easiest solution is to just have category redirects on the hyphenated versions.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 05:25, 6 February 2010 (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:African American Muslims
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.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 08:17, 23 February 2010 (UTC)reply
keep 'African American' without a hyphen is the agreed on name pattern for all such categories in WP. See the parent
Category:African Americans and its children and grandchildren.
Hmains (
talk) 17:28, 5 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Without a hyphen when it's a noun. With a hyphen when it's an adjective.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 05:23, 6 February 2010 (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:Members of the Socialist Party USA
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. —
ξxplicit 08:54, 13 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Found as incomplete doing December cleanup. May have been intended to be a part of
this discussion.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 00:29, 5 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Rename per nom. This category had deliberately been excluded pending verification that all constituents could, in fact, be deemed "politicians," which is indeed the case, but for which the tedium of confirmation is difficult to exaggerate.-
choster (
talk) 02:49, 5 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Oppose -- Not every party member is a politician. They may be a member, but notable for other reasons.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 23:46, 7 February 2010 (UTC)reply
In which case they shouldn't be in the category!
Good Ol’factory(talk) 02:55, 8 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Rename per nom. Should only contain politicians. We don't categorize people by mere membership in a political party.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 02:55, 8 February 2010 (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.