- 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. If 10th century Moravian articles need categorization, make that too. The rest of the Nth century Czech people may need to be nominated for renaming, and if that doesn't pass, then this close can be overturned.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 01:44, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:10th century in the Czech Republic to Category:10th century in Bohemia
- Nominator's rationale: Rename. Only known as the Czech Republic from the late 20th century onwards. Tim! ( talk) 22:22, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
- Rename, but note that if the boundaries are not identical, membership could change. -- Northernhenge ( talk) 23:33, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
- Split into Category:10th century in Bohemia and Category:10th century in Moravia. I agree the present name is not satsfactory, but The Czech Republic contains Bohemia and Moravia. Implementation -- Keep for now, but divide the contents between the two targets. When empty it can be deleted. It is not reaonable to expect the closing admin to undertake a split. Peterkingiron ( talk) 16:12, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
- Comment The only member of that particular one is Category:10th-century Czech people (all of whom seem to be Bohemian) but that's part of a series that goes 10th, 11th, 12th etc etc and some of those are members of "foo century in the Czech Republic". Splitting them all might be a big job. Implementation -- Are there any bulk renaming tools? -- Northernhenge ( talk) 18:27, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
- 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: C2D speedy. The Bushranger One ping only 20:16, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Medibank International to Category:Sydney International
- Nominator's rationale: Rename. Move to non sponsored name. As sponsor name will obviously change overtime. Dotdotdashdash ( talk) 22:21, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
- Support - That is already the name of the tournament here on wiki because sponsors change all the time and it's tennis project policy. In fact I believe this very tournament is scheduled for a new sponsor in 2012. Fyunck(click) ( talk) 09:52, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
- 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: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:46, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
-
Category:Trece Martires (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Delete The only article in the category is Trece Martires itself so it's basically empty. There currently doesn't appear to be any articles to populate it to a reasonable size. Pichpich ( talk) 19:53, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
- DElete until the main article needs to be split, though I doubt that this will necessary. Peterkingiron ( talk) 16:31, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
- 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: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:47, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
-
Category:Om (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Delete Category of limited use and very unclear scope. We already have Category:Mantras for articles such as Om Tat Sat and I don't really see a benefit to grouping mantras that start with "Om". Pichpich ( talk) 19:45, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
- Delete - no obvious use. Robofish ( talk) 01:02, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: rename. The oppose arguments are based on the concept that the head article should have some other name. The debate can be taken to the talk page of that article.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 03:42, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Jewish terrorism to Category:Jewish religious terrorism
- Nominator's rationale: Per main article. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 19:18, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose. The main article should be Jewish terrorism, as we have Christian terrorism and Islamic terrorism. I see no reason to change the name of the category to match an inappropriately named article.-- TM 04:46, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
- Support Judaism is not analogous to the universalist religions of Christianity and Islam. It has served as the basis for not only a religion, but also a nationality. Therefore, it calls for a distinct solution. There should be a category for Jewish religious terrorism, as opposed to the category for Jewish national terrorism which already exists -- Zionist terrorism. And I recognize that at times these two have overlapped. Plot Spoiler ( talk) 05:10, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose -- Most of the contents should either be in Category:Zionist terrorism or Category:Israeli terrorism: possibly Category:Terrorism by Israeli settlers. We probably also need a category for the people whom agents of Israel clandestinely render for trial in Israel, but that again would be an Israel category. Peterkingiron ( talk) 16:19, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
- Speedy rename per nom, unless/until the article Jewish religious terrorism is moved. I don't see anyone starting a RM to move it, so this falls under speedy criterion C2D. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:48, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose if we are categorizing terrorism by the religion of its perpetrators, this is where it belongs. Whether the terrorism is under color of some nationalistic motives (as often is) is the set of a whole bunch of other categories (see the first line of our own article Islamic terrorism: "Islamic terrorism (Arabic: إرهاب إسلامي ʾirhāb ʾislāmī) is acts of terrorism committed by Muslims for the purpose of achieving varying political and/or religious ends." Hence, it is the perp's religion that makes it defining (achieving "varying political and/or religious ends" is hardly exclusive of much in the terrorist world; commercial terrorism perhaps or pure secular apolitical enjoyment? prove me wrong on this score...) of any terrorism by a person of a religion - basically regardless of motive (stated or appearing in reliable sources) is properly termed Name_of_relgiion terrorism. Jewish is no exception. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 19:01, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
- Rename per nom, to match the article. This would be a case where we simply can't have a universal policy, and have to treat this category differently. (Actually, I wonder if the other categories shouldn't be renamed to Category:Christian religious terrorism and similar as well, but that's a discussion for another time.) Robofish ( talk) 01:01, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
- Rename, per nom, to match main article title. As Good Olfactory notes, this is a pretty unambiguous speedy, in fact. Arguments that the main article should have a different title are neither accurate nor relevant. Jayjg (talk) 02:05, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
- Rename, for consistency with the article name. The difference between Jewish terrorism and Christian/Muslim terrorism is that "Jewish" is ambiguous and also refers to the Jewish nationality. Therefore it is necessary to make it unambiguous. — Ynhockey ( Talk) 21:01, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
- 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: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:48, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
-
Category:Arena Football League free agents (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Category is about a current contract status, which is a non-defining characteristic of a player's career. TM 14:26, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
- Delete This is about currnet status (which can change). We do not like "current" categories. I am also concenred at having articles up to 2008 and from 2010. Even if the League restructured in 2009, this seems an imappropriate split. Peterkingiron ( talk) 16:29, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
- 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: delete.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 03:39, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
-
Category:Alliance for Healthy Cities (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Delete. This category is categorizing cities that are included in this health organization alliance. This is not a defining characteristic of these cities. The list in Alliance for Healthy Cities is probably the best way to approach this topic. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:36, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
- DElete -- If kept this would be "members of" AHC or "adherents to AHC code", but it feels more like an award category, which we habitually listify and delete. Peterkingiron ( talk) 16:25, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
- 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: Deleted by an admin as G4. I restored it to allow the bot the delete the category and remove the included articles. Vegaswikian ( talk) 03:07, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
-
Category:Tommy John surgery recipients (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Receiving Tommy John surgery is more of an incidental thing, and not a defining characteristic of the individual receiving it. – Muboshgu ( talk) 02:02, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - I disagree with the idea that undergoing Tommy John surgery is an "incidental" characteristic of a baseball player. While it has become more routine over time, it still requires a 12- to 18-month interruption in a player's career. Furthermore, whenever a new pitcher undergoes TJ surgery, there is usually a flurry of news articles comparing his prospects for recovery with other pitchers who have previously received the surgery. Hence, having the category seems useful in terms of organizing encyclopedic information. BRMo ( talk) 04:59, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. It's a detail of a career that is not defining for a person. It would be like having a category for sportspeople who have lost playing time for having had a concussion. It's certainly an important thing to note about a sportsperson's career and should be mentioned in the article about the sportsperson, but generally the lists in the article are more than sufficient for grouping these together. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:26, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. That someone receives one specific type of surgery and not another is non-defining.-- TM 14:28, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
- Keep. The specific nature of this surgery IS a defining characteristic for a baseball player. It directly results from in-game actions, typically removes 12-18 months from a player's career, and substantially affects his future role, earnings, and even career prospects within the sport. It's good that there's a list of surgery recipients, but lists and categories covering the same material are not redundant - they perform different functions by presenting the material in different ways. -
Hit bull, win steak
(Moo!)
16:21, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
- Tearing the UCL is no more defining than any other major injury. Tearing an
ACL, a series of concussions and any other number of injuries will keep one out of play for quite a long time. It took
Sidney Crosby in the NHL nearly a year to recover from a concussion. Should we have a category every major surgery someone receives? In my opinion, that would be an error.--
TM
16:34, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
- You can tear an ACL or sustain a concussion doing all kinds of things, but it's difficult to tear your UCL doing anything other than throwing a baseball (or a javelin, or a shot put...). It's an injury that's inextricably linked with the world of sports. Particularly given
Tommy John's role in helping Dr. Jobe develop the recovery protocol for the procedure. -
Hit bull, win steak
(Moo!)
15:33, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- So we have categories like this only if the injury is "inextricably linked with the world of sports"? I think there is some possible confusion here as to the difference between "notable" or "significant" vs. "defining", as set out by Mike Selinker below. Everyone agrees that this is signficant; the dispute is whether or not it is defining for a person. Categories are limited to defining characteristics. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:58, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- You can tear an ACL or sustain a concussion doing all kinds of things, but it's difficult to tear your UCL doing anything other than throwing a baseball (or a javelin, or a shot put...). It's an injury that's inextricably linked with the world of sports. Particularly given
Tommy John's role in helping Dr. Jobe develop the recovery protocol for the procedure. -
Hit bull, win steak
(Moo!)
15:33, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- Tearing the UCL is no more defining than any other major injury. Tearing an
ACL, a series of concussions and any other number of injuries will keep one out of play for quite a long time. It took
Sidney Crosby in the NHL nearly a year to recover from a concussion. Should we have a category every major surgery someone receives? In my opinion, that would be an error.--
TM
16:34, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
- Delete. There is a difference between being significant (which this is) and being definitive (which this isn't). There are many significant things we don't categorize pitchers by—their handedness, their number of wins, their ERAs. Tommy John surgery is far less significant than those things, and thus unworthy of categorization.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 16:33, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
- Pitcher wins are of little individual significance, in that they are largely a result of team run support, and ERA is a dynamic statistic describing performance, rather than a constant and binary state of being. As such, I do not view either as an acceptable analogue for this situation. Handedness is more appropriate, but since I think that we should categorize pitchers by handedness, I don't find that example persuasive. - Hit bull, win steak (Moo!) 16:39, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
- Perhaps, you'd agree we should have Category:Circumcised people because that's defining or significant to many more people than Tommy John surger. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 19:07, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what kind of baseball games you watch, but most of the pitchers I've seen don't seem to rely too heavily on their foreskins when they're on the mound. - Hit bull, win steak (Moo!) 23:02, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
- Oh, I forgot that this is the Wikibaseballpedia. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 05:55, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is a general-purpose encyclopedia that covers many things - including baseball. This category is a useful organizational device for baseball-related articles. As such, your mockery is unwarranted. If you are not familiar with baseball, then perhaps you should not be participating in deletion-related discussions on that subject until you've had time to familiarize yourself with the subject matter under discussion. - Hit bull, win steak (Moo!) 02:49, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
- I think Carlos meant that being circumcised is far more defining and important to many people (ie, non-ball players) than having had Tommy John surgery is to ball players. He did not mean to suggest Category:Circumcised baseball players and that's not what he said: he said Category:Circumcised people. His reference to "Wikibaseballpedia" I took as a sarcastic comment that you didn't realise this distinction was being made by him. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:32, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
- Rename to Category:Recipients of ulnar collateral ligament reconstruction, or listify and delete. Peterkingiron ( talk) 16:22, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
- This is a bad idea, per WP:COMMONNAME. - Hit bull, win steak (Moo!) 15:35, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- It's also essentially listified at Tommy John surgery. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:58, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- Comment - Just for the record, I agree with Peterkingiron. The informal name (Tommy John surgery recipients) is good for an article but should then refer readers to a more formally named category. -- Northernhenge ( talk) 00:36, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
- If a non-baseball player receives Tommy John surgery, is it still Tommy John surgery? Thoughts for meditation ... Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:53, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete like we did before Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_March_19#Category:People_who_have_had_Tommy_John_surgery, for the same reasons. Not defining. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 19:05, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
- Speedy delete as a duplicate of a deleted category. Otherwise delete as not defining for the people so categorized. 76.201.146.208 ( talk) 20:12, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete/Comment - I tend to agree with those saying this is non-defining. It's important but not category worthy. Additionally, even if this discussion were 100% keep, the proper venue for overturning the past decision is deletion review, not here, so I believe the appropriate close is speedy delete as G4 deletion and if people are unhappy about that they are free to gauge if consensus has changed on DRV. I would have done so myself but I didn't want to bother with removing all the category members. VegaDark ( talk) 21:55, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: rename. If 10th century Moravian articles need categorization, make that too. The rest of the Nth century Czech people may need to be nominated for renaming, and if that doesn't pass, then this close can be overturned.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 01:44, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:10th century in the Czech Republic to Category:10th century in Bohemia
- Nominator's rationale: Rename. Only known as the Czech Republic from the late 20th century onwards. Tim! ( talk) 22:22, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
- Rename, but note that if the boundaries are not identical, membership could change. -- Northernhenge ( talk) 23:33, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
- Split into Category:10th century in Bohemia and Category:10th century in Moravia. I agree the present name is not satsfactory, but The Czech Republic contains Bohemia and Moravia. Implementation -- Keep for now, but divide the contents between the two targets. When empty it can be deleted. It is not reaonable to expect the closing admin to undertake a split. Peterkingiron ( talk) 16:12, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
- Comment The only member of that particular one is Category:10th-century Czech people (all of whom seem to be Bohemian) but that's part of a series that goes 10th, 11th, 12th etc etc and some of those are members of "foo century in the Czech Republic". Splitting them all might be a big job. Implementation -- Are there any bulk renaming tools? -- Northernhenge ( talk) 18:27, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
- 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: C2D speedy. The Bushranger One ping only 20:16, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Medibank International to Category:Sydney International
- Nominator's rationale: Rename. Move to non sponsored name. As sponsor name will obviously change overtime. Dotdotdashdash ( talk) 22:21, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
- Support - That is already the name of the tournament here on wiki because sponsors change all the time and it's tennis project policy. In fact I believe this very tournament is scheduled for a new sponsor in 2012. Fyunck(click) ( talk) 09:52, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
- 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: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:46, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
-
Category:Trece Martires (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Delete The only article in the category is Trece Martires itself so it's basically empty. There currently doesn't appear to be any articles to populate it to a reasonable size. Pichpich ( talk) 19:53, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
- DElete until the main article needs to be split, though I doubt that this will necessary. Peterkingiron ( talk) 16:31, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
- 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: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:47, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
-
Category:Om (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Delete Category of limited use and very unclear scope. We already have Category:Mantras for articles such as Om Tat Sat and I don't really see a benefit to grouping mantras that start with "Om". Pichpich ( talk) 19:45, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
- Delete - no obvious use. Robofish ( talk) 01:02, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: rename. The oppose arguments are based on the concept that the head article should have some other name. The debate can be taken to the talk page of that article.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 03:42, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Jewish terrorism to Category:Jewish religious terrorism
- Nominator's rationale: Per main article. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 19:18, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose. The main article should be Jewish terrorism, as we have Christian terrorism and Islamic terrorism. I see no reason to change the name of the category to match an inappropriately named article.-- TM 04:46, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
- Support Judaism is not analogous to the universalist religions of Christianity and Islam. It has served as the basis for not only a religion, but also a nationality. Therefore, it calls for a distinct solution. There should be a category for Jewish religious terrorism, as opposed to the category for Jewish national terrorism which already exists -- Zionist terrorism. And I recognize that at times these two have overlapped. Plot Spoiler ( talk) 05:10, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose -- Most of the contents should either be in Category:Zionist terrorism or Category:Israeli terrorism: possibly Category:Terrorism by Israeli settlers. We probably also need a category for the people whom agents of Israel clandestinely render for trial in Israel, but that again would be an Israel category. Peterkingiron ( talk) 16:19, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
- Speedy rename per nom, unless/until the article Jewish religious terrorism is moved. I don't see anyone starting a RM to move it, so this falls under speedy criterion C2D. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:48, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose if we are categorizing terrorism by the religion of its perpetrators, this is where it belongs. Whether the terrorism is under color of some nationalistic motives (as often is) is the set of a whole bunch of other categories (see the first line of our own article Islamic terrorism: "Islamic terrorism (Arabic: إرهاب إسلامي ʾirhāb ʾislāmī) is acts of terrorism committed by Muslims for the purpose of achieving varying political and/or religious ends." Hence, it is the perp's religion that makes it defining (achieving "varying political and/or religious ends" is hardly exclusive of much in the terrorist world; commercial terrorism perhaps or pure secular apolitical enjoyment? prove me wrong on this score...) of any terrorism by a person of a religion - basically regardless of motive (stated or appearing in reliable sources) is properly termed Name_of_relgiion terrorism. Jewish is no exception. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 19:01, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
- Rename per nom, to match the article. This would be a case where we simply can't have a universal policy, and have to treat this category differently. (Actually, I wonder if the other categories shouldn't be renamed to Category:Christian religious terrorism and similar as well, but that's a discussion for another time.) Robofish ( talk) 01:01, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
- Rename, per nom, to match main article title. As Good Olfactory notes, this is a pretty unambiguous speedy, in fact. Arguments that the main article should have a different title are neither accurate nor relevant. Jayjg (talk) 02:05, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
- Rename, for consistency with the article name. The difference between Jewish terrorism and Christian/Muslim terrorism is that "Jewish" is ambiguous and also refers to the Jewish nationality. Therefore it is necessary to make it unambiguous. — Ynhockey ( Talk) 21:01, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
- 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: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:48, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
-
Category:Arena Football League free agents (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Category is about a current contract status, which is a non-defining characteristic of a player's career. TM 14:26, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
- Delete This is about currnet status (which can change). We do not like "current" categories. I am also concenred at having articles up to 2008 and from 2010. Even if the League restructured in 2009, this seems an imappropriate split. Peterkingiron ( talk) 16:29, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
- 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: delete.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 03:39, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
-
Category:Alliance for Healthy Cities (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Delete. This category is categorizing cities that are included in this health organization alliance. This is not a defining characteristic of these cities. The list in Alliance for Healthy Cities is probably the best way to approach this topic. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:36, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
- DElete -- If kept this would be "members of" AHC or "adherents to AHC code", but it feels more like an award category, which we habitually listify and delete. Peterkingiron ( talk) 16:25, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
- 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: Deleted by an admin as G4. I restored it to allow the bot the delete the category and remove the included articles. Vegaswikian ( talk) 03:07, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
-
Category:Tommy John surgery recipients (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Receiving Tommy John surgery is more of an incidental thing, and not a defining characteristic of the individual receiving it. – Muboshgu ( talk) 02:02, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - I disagree with the idea that undergoing Tommy John surgery is an "incidental" characteristic of a baseball player. While it has become more routine over time, it still requires a 12- to 18-month interruption in a player's career. Furthermore, whenever a new pitcher undergoes TJ surgery, there is usually a flurry of news articles comparing his prospects for recovery with other pitchers who have previously received the surgery. Hence, having the category seems useful in terms of organizing encyclopedic information. BRMo ( talk) 04:59, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. It's a detail of a career that is not defining for a person. It would be like having a category for sportspeople who have lost playing time for having had a concussion. It's certainly an important thing to note about a sportsperson's career and should be mentioned in the article about the sportsperson, but generally the lists in the article are more than sufficient for grouping these together. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:26, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. That someone receives one specific type of surgery and not another is non-defining.-- TM 14:28, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
- Keep. The specific nature of this surgery IS a defining characteristic for a baseball player. It directly results from in-game actions, typically removes 12-18 months from a player's career, and substantially affects his future role, earnings, and even career prospects within the sport. It's good that there's a list of surgery recipients, but lists and categories covering the same material are not redundant - they perform different functions by presenting the material in different ways. -
Hit bull, win steak
(Moo!)
16:21, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
- Tearing the UCL is no more defining than any other major injury. Tearing an
ACL, a series of concussions and any other number of injuries will keep one out of play for quite a long time. It took
Sidney Crosby in the NHL nearly a year to recover from a concussion. Should we have a category every major surgery someone receives? In my opinion, that would be an error.--
TM
16:34, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
- You can tear an ACL or sustain a concussion doing all kinds of things, but it's difficult to tear your UCL doing anything other than throwing a baseball (or a javelin, or a shot put...). It's an injury that's inextricably linked with the world of sports. Particularly given
Tommy John's role in helping Dr. Jobe develop the recovery protocol for the procedure. -
Hit bull, win steak
(Moo!)
15:33, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- So we have categories like this only if the injury is "inextricably linked with the world of sports"? I think there is some possible confusion here as to the difference between "notable" or "significant" vs. "defining", as set out by Mike Selinker below. Everyone agrees that this is signficant; the dispute is whether or not it is defining for a person. Categories are limited to defining characteristics. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:58, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- You can tear an ACL or sustain a concussion doing all kinds of things, but it's difficult to tear your UCL doing anything other than throwing a baseball (or a javelin, or a shot put...). It's an injury that's inextricably linked with the world of sports. Particularly given
Tommy John's role in helping Dr. Jobe develop the recovery protocol for the procedure. -
Hit bull, win steak
(Moo!)
15:33, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- Tearing the UCL is no more defining than any other major injury. Tearing an
ACL, a series of concussions and any other number of injuries will keep one out of play for quite a long time. It took
Sidney Crosby in the NHL nearly a year to recover from a concussion. Should we have a category every major surgery someone receives? In my opinion, that would be an error.--
TM
16:34, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
- Delete. There is a difference between being significant (which this is) and being definitive (which this isn't). There are many significant things we don't categorize pitchers by—their handedness, their number of wins, their ERAs. Tommy John surgery is far less significant than those things, and thus unworthy of categorization.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 16:33, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
- Pitcher wins are of little individual significance, in that they are largely a result of team run support, and ERA is a dynamic statistic describing performance, rather than a constant and binary state of being. As such, I do not view either as an acceptable analogue for this situation. Handedness is more appropriate, but since I think that we should categorize pitchers by handedness, I don't find that example persuasive. - Hit bull, win steak (Moo!) 16:39, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
- Perhaps, you'd agree we should have Category:Circumcised people because that's defining or significant to many more people than Tommy John surger. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 19:07, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what kind of baseball games you watch, but most of the pitchers I've seen don't seem to rely too heavily on their foreskins when they're on the mound. - Hit bull, win steak (Moo!) 23:02, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
- Oh, I forgot that this is the Wikibaseballpedia. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 05:55, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is a general-purpose encyclopedia that covers many things - including baseball. This category is a useful organizational device for baseball-related articles. As such, your mockery is unwarranted. If you are not familiar with baseball, then perhaps you should not be participating in deletion-related discussions on that subject until you've had time to familiarize yourself with the subject matter under discussion. - Hit bull, win steak (Moo!) 02:49, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
- I think Carlos meant that being circumcised is far more defining and important to many people (ie, non-ball players) than having had Tommy John surgery is to ball players. He did not mean to suggest Category:Circumcised baseball players and that's not what he said: he said Category:Circumcised people. His reference to "Wikibaseballpedia" I took as a sarcastic comment that you didn't realise this distinction was being made by him. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:32, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
- Rename to Category:Recipients of ulnar collateral ligament reconstruction, or listify and delete. Peterkingiron ( talk) 16:22, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
- This is a bad idea, per WP:COMMONNAME. - Hit bull, win steak (Moo!) 15:35, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- It's also essentially listified at Tommy John surgery. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:58, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- Comment - Just for the record, I agree with Peterkingiron. The informal name (Tommy John surgery recipients) is good for an article but should then refer readers to a more formally named category. -- Northernhenge ( talk) 00:36, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
- If a non-baseball player receives Tommy John surgery, is it still Tommy John surgery? Thoughts for meditation ... Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:53, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete like we did before Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_March_19#Category:People_who_have_had_Tommy_John_surgery, for the same reasons. Not defining. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 19:05, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
- Speedy delete as a duplicate of a deleted category. Otherwise delete as not defining for the people so categorized. 76.201.146.208 ( talk) 20:12, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete/Comment - I tend to agree with those saying this is non-defining. It's important but not category worthy. Additionally, even if this discussion were 100% keep, the proper venue for overturning the past decision is deletion review, not here, so I believe the appropriate close is speedy delete as G4 deletion and if people are unhappy about that they are free to gauge if consensus has changed on DRV. I would have done so myself but I didn't want to bother with removing all the category members. VegaDark ( talk) 21:55, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
- 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.